True.
The idea that UNC didn't break any rules is completely bogus. (and coincidentally exactly what the PR firms, which UNC has paid millions of dollars to, would like the public to think.) There are PLENTY of specific rules that they could be charged with, the problem is that either the NCAA doesn't want to or UNC has effectively lobbied the NCAA not to pursue anything with respect to basketball or football.
The issue which is lost is that UNC has been steering this investigation from Day 1, and has simply ignored or avoided numerous issues which by themselves could easily be violations. They 'self-report' additional charges on Jan Boxill, once they recognize that trying to frame everything on two individuals (which was their initial game plan) wouldn't fly. What about 'self-reporting' Wheels for Heels, ADHD testing, Tami Hansbrough's job among other things. Heck even the fact that Roy Williams was 'renting' out his house to a former player.
Were any of those things independently and thoroughly investigated? Were any of those things submitted to the NCAA as potential issues?
People (including Matt Jones BTW) have been suckered into ONLY looking at the idea of whether the bogus classes were specifically outlawed by the NCAA manual. That's so besides the point that it's a joke.
People need to look at the big picture and recognize that what Carolina did was to violate the very core principles that are clearly outlined in the NCAA manual and form the entire basis of fair competition. Principles like the Principle of "Fairness, Openness and Honesty", "Sound Academic Standards", "Principle of Rules Compliance", "Principle Governing Eligibility" etc.
The NCAA manual is criticized as being too long, and it might be, but it's simply not designed to specify every single potential infraction in detail. Instead it expects the institutions to adhere to core principles in terms upholding the stated goals and principles of the organization for which they are a member. The specific rules that are in place (most related to player eligibility, amateurism, recruiting etc.) are written with the understanding that the institutions themselves will not be involved in fraudulent or dishonest activities.
When Carolina is found to be completely negligent in upholding the core principles (which they clearly have), then frankly there's really no need to even cite a specific rule (even though again, many could be cited, especially for issues which the NCAA failed to adequately investigate).
Having someone claim that outright institutionalized fraud is 'technically not against the rules' is like a bank robber claiming that he did nothing wrong because when he was in the lobby of a bank he was about to rob, he saw a sign which only said to 'be quiet, don't chew gum, and wait for the next person in line'. In his mind because robbing the bank was not specifically listed, he should be found innocent.
It's such a bogus claim, but exactly the type of myopic argument that Bilas has tried to make, and for which for whatever reason Jones has bought hook line and sinker.
PS, the Penn State case has been brought up and was something which was discussed in detail on this board in the past. In that case the NCAA stepped in and punished the school even though there was no specific rules in the NCAA manual broken. At the time, and still today, I think the NCAA overstepped their bounds in that case. To me that was a criminal issue which the NCAA had no authority to stick their nose into. The ONLY reason they did was because it happened in the athletic department. If it had happened in the Math department or in the school of Nursing or in Facilities, it would have been handled completely differently. (i.e. by the criminal justice system in conjunction with the University administration)
But the UNC case is very different. For one, despite the claims by Bilas, UNC did indeed violate specific rules, even if you ONLY look at the relatively limit scope of issues that Wainstein investigated. For example UNC (as are all institutions) are required to certify that their athletes are academically eligible to compete each year. I would argue that by doing so with athletes that they either knew (or should have known) only met the minimal requirements with the aid of these bogus/suspect classes, that UNC administration itself was engaged in fraudulent and dishonest activities.
Secondly, while Penn State probably violated some core principles in the way they handled the Jerry Sandusky case, none of it directly impacted the eligibility of its student-athletes, and none of it affected the school's core focus of providing a quality education to those athletes. In UNC's case, their fraudulent activity not only affected, but it was the primary vehicle for keeping players playing, who otherwise would not have been eligible. And this in turn gave UNC a direct competitive advantage over it's rivals.
In such a case, the NCAA not only has the right, but they have the obligation to step in and punish the school which is clearly violating the core principles which they are expected to uphold. Otherwise the NCAA itself has failed to do its duty and there's no reason for it to exist.
