North Carolina Scandal Etc

[UKnCincy]

They're being tried under the previous bylaws aren't they?

Correct. At the time the new investigation was started, the 2014-2015 by-laws were in effect and govern the handling of this investigation. The penalty structure will be determined using the prior regime, because most of the violations occurred prior to October 30, 2012.

16.01.1.1.1 was formally adopted in the 2015-2016 version, but NCAA can apply it to this case. Generally, it is the procedural aspects of specific version that the NCAA will stick to when using one version versus another.

16.01.1.1.1 can be applied to this case, despite codification is a subsequent version. Stacey Osburn, NCAA spokeswoman, said as much back in June when responding to an inquiry from Andrew Carter.

EDIT: Just to be clear. As I stated in an earlier post, the NCAA has always adopted the stance in 16.01.1.1.1. It simply wasn't codified formally until recently. It was typically handled under 16.11.2 and 16.11.2.1. Bylaw 16.11.2 states that athletes shall not receive any special arrangements from an institutional employee.

Bylaw 16.11.2.1 specifies examples of types of special arrangements such as loans, co-signing on loans or use of a car. However, the NCAA left themselves room by using the phrase: "including, but not limited to..." This is generally where they've handled impermissible academic assistance prior to 16.01.1.1.1's adoption.

While the specific language has changed from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016, the underlying logic and framework is the same.

 

[jarms24]

Correct. At the time the new investigation was started, the 2014-2015 by-laws were in effect and govern the handling of this investigation. The penalty structure will be determined using the prior regime, because most of the violations occurred prior to October 30, 2012.

16.01.1.1.1 was formally adopted in the 2015-2016 version, but NCAA can apply it to this case. Generally, it is the procedural aspects of specific version that the NCAA will stick to when using one version versus another.

16.01.1.1.1 can be applied to this case, despite codification is a subsequent version. Stacey Osburn, NCAA spokeswoman, said as much back in June when responding to an inquiry from Andrew Carter.

EDIT: Just to be clear. As I stated in an earlier post, the NCAA has always adopted the stance in 16.01.1.1.1. It simply wasn't codified formally until recently. It was typically handled under 16.11.2 and 16.11.2.1. Bylaw 16.11.2 states that athletes shall not receive any special arrangements from an institutional employee.

Bylaw 16.11.2.1 specifies examples of types of special arrangements such as loans, co-signing on loans or use of a car. However, the NCAA left themselves room by using the phrase: "including, but not limited to..." This is generally where they've handled impermissible academic assistance prior to 16.01.1.1.1's adoption.

While the specific language has changed from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016, the underlying logic and framework is the same.

UNC** is screwed! I think the NCAA framed the NOA in a way that leaves them a lot of latitude. There really isn't a technicality that UNC** can exploit.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Correct. At the time the new investigation was started, the 2014-2015 by-laws were in effect and govern the handling of this investigation. The penalty structure will be determined using the prior regime, because most of the violations occurred prior to October 30, 2012.

16.01.1.1.1 was formally adopted in the 2015-2016 version, but NCAA can apply it to this case. Generally, it is the procedural aspects of specific version that the NCAA will stick to when using one version versus another.

16.01.1.1.1 can be applied to this case, despite codification is a subsequent version. Stacey Osburn, NCAA spokeswoman, said as much back in June when responding to an inquiry from Andrew Carter.

EDIT: Just to be clear. As I stated in an earlier post, the NCAA has always adopted the stance in 16.01.1.1.1. It simply wasn't codified formally until recently. It was typically handled under 16.11.2 and 16.11.2.1. Bylaw 16.11.2 states that athletes shall not receive any special arrangements from an institutional employee.

Bylaw 16.11.2.1 specifies examples of types of special arrangements such as loans, co-signing on loans or use of a car. However, the NCAA left themselves room by using the phrase: "including, but not limited to..." This is generally where they've handled impermissible academic assistance prior to 16.01.1.1.1's adoption.

While the specific language has changed from 2014-2015 to 2015-2016, the underlying logic and framework is the same.

Sorry, but can you explain, again, the chain of logic that the NCAA uses (ignoring any "what-if"s or "it's possible"s) when deciding on eligibility? From the NOA we know the NCAA is saying UNC violated bylaw 16.11.2.1 by giving athletes extra privileges. But how does the line of logic flow from there? Do I go back to 16.01 and trace my way through those (ie, I start at the first, no money involved so I move on to the next and work my way down until I reach the correct one)? I am asking because the manual they simply says that athletes shall not receive any special arrangements from an institutional employee in 16.11.2.1, but it doesn't state the consequence of doing so.

 

[UKnCincy]

Sorry, but can you explain, again, the chain of logic that the NCAA uses (ignoring any "what-if"s or "it's possible"s) when deciding on eligibility? From the NOA we know the NCAA is saying UNC violated bylaw 16.11.2.1 by giving athletes extra privileges. But how does the line of logic flow from there? Do I go back to 16.01 and trace my way through those (ie, I start at the first, no money involved so I move on to the next and work my way down until I reach the correct one)? I am asking because the manual they simply says that athletes shall not receive any special arrangements from an institutional employee in 16.11.2.1, but it doesn't state the consequence of doing so.

It's confusing because of the how the manual has grown over the years. That is one of the things the NCAA is trying to address by 2016 with the revisions related to academic misconduct. Bylaw 16.01.1.1.1 is one of the first changes.

In this instance, it's essentially: was an impermissible benefit received? If yes, how is it classified under restitution process? If benefit has no monetary value, did it constitute impermissible academic assistance? The reinstatement process has supplemental materials that also guide this process.

Under old bylaws, 16.11.2.1 ran somewhat in parallel to 16.01.1.1. However, NCAA has always treated benefits from institution members differently than those from boosters. For example, a coach letting a player borrow his car for the day is more of an issue than a booster doing the same.

Impermissible educational assistance from an institutional member results in athlete ineligibility. This was the case with Jennifer Wiley, who's improper academic assistance resulted in UNC using an ineligible player. Same with Syracuse. As part of raising this allegation in an NOA however, the NCAA does not have to explicitly state that athlete A was ineligible. It can remain implicit in the NOA, to be further elucidated in the final report after the COI ruling.

One way to tell how the NCAA is viewing this is to see what they request from the school in the NOA. If they ask the school to provide a statement on whether or not vacating of wins applies to the athletes involved, it's a tell tale sign that the NCAA sees these students as ineligible and the school will have to prove otherwise. The NCAA asked UNC this very question in both NOAs they've sent to UNC. In the current NOA, this is found in the Request for Supplemental Information Section (page 54, item #10, bullet #7).

The fundamental issue in this case is that UNC provided a number of academic benefits to athletes that were not available to the general student population, and therefore impermissible. This alone creates an eligibility issue. Further complicating the matter, these impermissible benefits contributed to maintaining eligibility and resulted in an "erroneous certification of eligibility." This also creates an eligibility issue.

 

[Hoskins91]

I think Poythress has the strength to bang with Meeks and he is a savvy defender. He'll hold his own. Labissiere can stay with Johnson. Lee and Hicks, that's a push. Humphries has good size and should be able to hold his own. James is big but slow.

The question is who guards Labissiere and Poythress? Johnson probably hangs with Poythress, but Meeks can't guard Labissiere. Put Johnson on Labissiere and Meeks can't guard Poythress.

I think the match ups inside favor UK.

I think you're giving Poythress way more credit than he deserves. He's exactly the kind of guy you can put a weak defender on. Meeks is too big for him to bully and Poythress doesn't have the perimeter skills to take advantage of his mobility. Labissiere and Poythress will probably struggle containing bigger players who know how to take advantage of their size.

 

[saxonburgcat]

Wow, keep spinning and twisting and ignoring the question. We get it, you say things which are not true, get called on them, and try in vain to change the subject so you don't have to admit that you have no clue what you're talking about. I don't care about your feelings towards bethel. I only care that when you say things you can back them up. You can't, because you lie. You're a troll. Please leave the board for those who actually do pay attention to what's going on.

It looks like the little girl got her panties in a bunch. Kinda losing it there, aren't you honey?

 

[bucsrule8872]

I think you're giving Poythress way more credit than he deserves. He's exactly the kind of guy you can put a weak defender on. Meeks is too big for him to bully and Poythress doesn't have the perimeter skills to take advantage of his mobility. Labissiere and Poythress will probably struggle containing bigger players who know how to take advantage of their size.

I think you are giving UNC too much credit.

 

[Hoskins91]

I think you are giving UNC too much credit.

Didn't say they'd beat us, just that they're one of the few teams that could take advantage of us lacking a lot of bulk.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

not a lot of new info, but they are clearly pointing out how the men's bball team is being protected.

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article31148684.html

 

[preacherfan]

I wonder why the N&O keeps referring to the classes as "fake?" Haven't they read Bradley Bethel's blog?

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Surely they've at least talked to Bobby by now.

 

[uky8unc5]

I wonder how big a hit the Raleigh News Observer has taken through all of this? They have been relentless in pursuing the Flagship University in this state.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

It's confusing because of the how the manual has grown over the years. That is one of the things the NCAA is trying to address by 2016 with the revisions related to academic misconduct. Bylaw 16.01.1.1.1 is one of the first changes.

In this instance, it's essentially: was an impermissible benefit received? If yes, how is it classified under restitution process? If benefit has no monetary value, did it constitute impermissible academic assistance? The reinstatement process has supplemental materials that also guide this process.

Under old bylaws, 16.11.2.1 ran somewhat in parallel to 16.01.1.1. However, NCAA has always treated benefits from institution members differently than those from boosters. For example, a coach letting a player borrow his car for the day is more of an issue than a booster doing the same.

Impermissible educational assistance from an institutional member results in athlete ineligibility. This was the case with Jennifer Wiley, who's improper academic assistance resulted in UNC using an ineligible player. Same with Syracuse. As part of raising this allegation in an NOA however, the NCAA does not have to explicitly state that athlete A was ineligible. It can remain implicit in the NOA, to be further elucidated in the final report after the COI ruling.

One way to tell how the NCAA is viewing this is to see what they request from the school in the NOA. If they ask the school to provide a statement on whether or not vacating of wins applies to the athletes involved, it's a tell tale sign that the NCAA sees these students as ineligible and the school will have to prove otherwise. The NCAA asked UNC this very question in both NOAs they've sent to UNC. In the current NOA, this is found in the Request for Supplemental Information Section (page 54, item #10, bullet #7).

The fundamental issue in this case is that UNC provided a number of academic benefits to athletes that were not available to the general student population, and therefore impermissible. This alone creates an eligibility issue. Further complicating the matter, these impermissible benefits contributed to maintaining eligibility and resulted in an "erroneous certification of eligibility." This also creates an eligibility issue.

Thanks, once again, for writing this up. It really does help parse through the NCAA procedures and bylaws.

Regarding Jennifer Wiley. Now, this might be splitting hairs but according to the 2011 NOA (allegation #1) she and the players committed "academic fraud". In particular, she was alleged to have provided them with improper academic assistance in the form of writing (parts of) papers for a few students. Those students are mentioned by name as being immediately ineligible following this assistance in the NOA. In the latest case they're not alleging academic fraud, nor are they alleging any MBB players to have had their work completed for them. They're alleging that they were given registration benefits not given to all students.

Regarding the "tell tale sign". Thanks for bringing this up. I've looked through both NOAs, Hawaii's and Southern Miss's and while the first UNC NOA is worded slightly different the recent three are identical in their wording. This leads me to think that it's a copy/paste section that is amended to all NOAs. Even assuming that it is specifically there because the NCAA is implying ineligible players then it still doesn't seem quite right as it is asking UNC (and the other institutions) if the NOA includes cases of ineligible athletes. In all of the other NOAs they specifically say certain athletes were ineligible, so why would they then later ask the universities if they deemed athletes to be ineligible? I think this all clearly points to that section being a copy/paste amendment which appears on all NOAs (at least recent ones).


I understand what you're saying and I can see how it would make sense, but I still think what I'm saying is correct and will be the outcome. It would be nice to see UNC's response to the NOA, perhaps it will shed some light on things...but I guess we'll just have to wait and see if any MBB players are deemed to be ineligible and wins/banners vacated. Thanks again for the explanations and posts.

 

[shun1]

With all the DO-DO that has been thrown at her name, I can still make this statement. It truly saddens me what has happen at UNC. For those that have never been on campus, this is one beautiful campus. GOD BLESS all of you that think other wise, but guess what, what ever happens to UNC, life will continue.

!!!!!!!!!!!! GO UNC !!!!!!!!!!!!

!!!!!!!!!!!! GO TAR HEELS !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Rhavicc]

Shame ---- Shame ---- Shame

 

[catzfanjim]

I hate the UNC Cheaters and everything they stand for.

 

[hoodro]

 

[MdWIldcat55]

That's fine. But if you are an honest person you'll admit that it has been the dirtiest program in major sports over the past two decades -- especially the AF-AM mega-scandal but also many other abuses from Wheels-For-Heels to the phony job for Tami Hansbrough to Will Graves running drugs at a Roy Williams property, to PJ "Guns N Drugs" Hairston and on and on.

If you really love the university you'll be behind major sanctions and rebuilding with new coaches from the ground up. It is the only path to regaining any respect for the athletic programs.

 

[Shawn (uk7spd)]

 

[gregbookout]

It is a beautiful campus, but that doesn't change the facts of what happened in the African American studies department and the athletic department. Schools have been punished harshly in much less evidence and for lesser offenses. Your own players have come forth and admitted what happened and how they felt about it. If they really care about doing things the right way they will admit the wrong doing, accept the penalties and move forward. Our own beloved cats looked to be doomed in 1988, but tradition backed by BBN would never allow UK to fade away. UNC will have some rough years if all pans out the way it should, but they will be back. Somebody has to beat PUKE in conference and I love the UK UNC rivalry. The games are always great.

 

[bucsrule8872]

Didn't say they'd beat us, just that they're one of the few teams that could take advantage of us lacking a lot of bulk.

I'm not concerned. I'll take athleticism and quickness over bulk any day.

I think you are underestimating Poythress and his quickness and perimeter skills (as a 4, not a 3). If he is healthy and he plays like he did in the Bahamas (from the 4 spot), then Meeks can not guard him.

On defense, Poythress is a strong player. Meeks probably gets his points, but Poythress will make him work for them. I also think the wear and tear of defending quicker guys will wear down Meeks, who is not known for his stamina any way.

Just my take. A lot hinges on Poythress' health. If he is back to 100% and playing like he is capable of, then he is going to be tough for most 4's or 5's to guard.

 

[shun1]

It is a beautiful campus, but that doesn't change the facts of what happened in the African American studies department and the athletic department. Schools have been punished harshly in much less evidence and for lesser offenses. Your own players have come forth and admitted what happened and how they felt about it. If they really care about doing things the right way they will admit the wrong doing, accept the penalties and move forward. Our own beloved cats looked to be doomed in 1988, but tradition backed by BBN would never allow UK to fade away. UNC will have some rough years if all pans out the way it should, but they will be back. Somebody has to beat PUKE in conference and I love the UK UNC rivalry. The games are always great.[
God Bless you, gregbookout. your response to my post was very good. Everything in this life is not perfect, but we pray to God for the strength to get through it the best we can as I have done with UNC.

!!!!!!!!!!!!! GO TAR HEELS !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Kycatspaws]

 

[KWilt43atbuzz]

Blocked by Davis!!!!!

 

[Hoskins91]

I'm not concerned. I'll take athleticism and quickness over bulk any day.

I think you are underestimating Poythress and his quickness and perimeter skills (as a 4, not a 3). If he is healthy and he plays like he did in the Bahamas (from the 4 spot), then Meeks can not guard him.

On defense, Poythress is a strong player. Meeks probably gets his points, but Poythress will make him work for them. I also think the wear and tear of defending quicker guys will wear down Meeks, who is not known for his stamina any way.

Just my take. A lot hinges on Poythress' health. If he is back to 100% and playing like he is capable of, then he is going to be tough for most 4's or 5's to guard.

That's the thing, you dont really have to guard him. The only way he hurts you on offense is if he kills you on the boards, or you leave him alone on the baseline. If you block him out he doesn't do much.

 

[Marylandis1]

UNC Rap Sheet (Just basketball: you should see football)

Steve Bucknall Assault
Makhtar Ndiaye Assault
J.R. Reid Assault
Terrence Newby Assault inflicting serious injury
Ed Cota Assault inflicting serious injury, Drunk Driving
King Rice Assaulting a female
Jerry Stackhouse Assaulting a female
Rasheed Wallace Assaulting a female, Possession of Marijuana
Charlie Scott Bankruptcy Fraud
Jimmie Black Domestic Violence
PJ Hairston Drug possession and driving without a license , Assault
Phil Ford DWI (twice)
Tywon Lawson DWI, Driving while drinking, revoked license, noise ordinance,DWI #2
Marcus Ginyard Failure to appear, Noise Ordinance
Raymond Felton Felony criminal possession of a firearm
Max Konstanzer Identity Theft, Public Urination
Clifford Rozier Larceny, Cocaine Trafficking, Domestic Battery, Burglary, Grand Theft Auto
Will Graves Possession of marijuana and drug paraphernalia
Joe Forte Possession of marijuana, Possession of illegal handgun, Assault
Melvin Scott Rape,Assaulting a female, Assaulting a Police Officer, Tresspassing
JamesOn Curry Selling and Possession of Marijuana
James Worthy Soliciting Prostitution
Clyde Lynn Statutory Rape, Felony Cocaine Trafficking, Sale & Delivery of Cocaine & Marijuana

 

[jameslee32]

Yeah but did anyone punch a horse?

 

[Barong23]

Please ban this idiot. You don't go to another fan board and make an all caps thread like this.

 

[Pope John Wall II]

Your university is a sham and you should feel as morally bankrupt as UNCheat is. Feel free to continue supporting a joke of an athletic, academic, collegiate, and ethical institution that has been cheating it's alumni base for at least the last 30 years.

 

[Orville Boggs]

Pretty sure that UNCheat is a running joke except for the fools in Chapel Hill. I'm tired of reading about this and more interested in Tom Brady's PSI levels when he takes the field.

 

[Xception]

The tactic of a thief , conman or criminal , distraction . Hey , look at the beautiful campus while we rob college sports blind by cheating . Keep lookin' at them perty oaks whilst we steal our titles , come back now ya hear . SMILE and WAVE .

 

[westerncat]

Your morals are not very high are they. I hope they throw the book at UNC***.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Thanks, once again, for writing this up. It really does help parse through the NCAA procedures and bylaws.

Regarding Jennifer Wiley. Now, this might be splitting hairs but according to the 2011 NOA (allegation #1) she and the players committed "academic fraud". In particular, she was alleged to have provided them with improper academic assistance in the form of writing (parts of) papers for a few students. Those students are mentioned by name as being immediately ineligible following this assistance in the NOA. In the latest case they're not alleging academic fraud, nor are they alleging any MBB players to have had their work completed for them. They're alleging that they were given registration benefits not given to all students.

Regarding the "tell tale sign". Thanks for bringing this up. I've looked through both NOAs, Hawaii's and Southern Miss's and while the first UNC NOA is worded slightly different the recent three are identical in their wording. This leads me to think that it's a copy/paste section that is amended to all NOAs. Even assuming that it is specifically there because the NCAA is implying ineligible players then it still doesn't seem quite right as it is asking UNC (and the other institutions) if the NOA includes cases of ineligible athletes. In all of the other NOAs they specifically say certain athletes were ineligible, so why would they then later ask the universities if they deemed athletes to be ineligible? I think this all clearly points to that section being a copy/paste amendment which appears on all NOAs (at least recent ones).


I understand what you're saying and I can see how it would make sense, but I still think what I'm saying is correct and will be the outcome. It would be nice to see UNC's response to the NOA, perhaps it will shed some light on things...but I guess we'll just have to wait and see if any MBB players are deemed to be ineligible and wins/banners vacated. Thanks again for the explanations and posts.

The reason you've given in claiming that mbb wouldn't be punished was because no specific player was charged with competing while ineligible. Another claim you've made is that no players would be declared ineligible because there was no charge of academic fraud.

I've looked through the NOA's to Hawaii and Southern Miss too and I couldn't find where it said student-athlete xxx competed while ineligible. In the Southern Miss case players admitted to receiving impermissible benefits and assistant coaches said they were instructed by Tyndall to perform online coursework for recruits, yet they weren't charged with academic fraud. Since no players were named in those allegations and Southern Miss wasn't accused of academic fraud that would shoot down both of your theories.

 

[ukfan03]

Well shucks!

 

[IdaCat]

Why is this trolling POS allowed to pollute our message board with this garbage?

 

[jarms24]

Whelp, this went over about like a turd in a punch bowl.

 

[jarms24]

I wonder why the N&O keeps referring to the classes as "fake?" Haven't they read Bradley Bethel's blog?

Even more importantly, UNC** hasn't requested one single redaction from the N&O since Kane began covering this! Nor a lawsuit for defamation. That is very telling, imo.

 

[UK till Death]

UNC is low-down... dirty... they some bitches.

(Artistic license... lol)

 

[UKnCincy]

Thanks, once again, for writing this up. It really does help parse through the NCAA procedures and bylaws.

Regarding Jennifer Wiley. Now, this might be splitting hairs but according to the 2011 NOA (allegation #1) she and the players committed "academic fraud". In particular, she was alleged to have provided them with improper academic assistance in the form of writing (parts of) papers for a few students. Those students are mentioned by name as being immediately ineligible following this assistance in the NOA. In the latest case they're not alleging academic fraud, nor are they alleging any MBB players to have had their work completed for them. They're alleging that they were given registration benefits not given to all students.

Regarding the "tell tale sign". Thanks for bringing this up. I've looked through both NOAs, Hawaii's and Southern Miss's and while the first UNC NOA is worded slightly different the recent three are identical in their wording. This leads me to think that it's a copy/paste section that is amended to all NOAs. Even assuming that it is specifically there because the NCAA is implying ineligible players then it still doesn't seem quite right as it is asking UNC (and the other institutions) if the NOA includes cases of ineligible athletes. In all of the other NOAs they specifically say certain athletes were ineligible, so why would they then later ask the universities if they deemed athletes to be ineligible? I think this all clearly points to that section being a copy/paste amendment which appears on all NOAs (at least recent ones).


I understand what you're saying and I can see how it would make sense, but I still think what I'm saying is correct and will be the outcome. It would be nice to see UNC's response to the NOA, perhaps it will shed some light on things...but I guess we'll just have to wait and see if any MBB players are deemed to be ineligible and wins/banners vacated. Thanks again for the explanations and posts.

First, in Wiley's case it's both. Editing & writing rise to the level of fraud, whereas simply typing a paper (or portion like a works cited page) is not always considered to be fraud. It's merely an extra benefit that doesn't necessarily rise to the level of "unethical conduct." The NCAA opted to just allege the Article 10 violations as they (and the associated penalties) were sufficient.

This is not an uncommon practice. The NCAA could have easily hit UNC with a violation of 14.2.2.6 (b) in the most recent NOA. It states independent study courses may be used to maintain eligibility provided:

"The student-athlete enrolls in the course in the same manner as is available to any student;"
​

Per the NOA itself, that clearly didn't happen. However, the 16.11.2.1 allegation is sufficient to warrant omitting 14.2.2.6(b) from the NOA. Keep in mind that Jan Boxill is also alleged in the NOA to have done the exact same thing as Wiley (writing conclusions of papers), yet academic fraud is never mentioned. There will be differences from one NOA to the next based upon the facts, the stance of the university, and the approach the NCAA believes will work best.

At any rate, regardless of it being labeled fraud or simply an extra benefit, any extra benefit renders an athlete ineligible pending reinstatement proceedings. There is a difference between a "benefit" and an "extra benefit." The NCAA describes benefits (and associated limits) that are permitted. The only restriction is that they be provided to all students, unless the NCAA states an exception. Extra benefits on the other hand, are always an issue and always result in ineligibility until reinstatement occurs.

Athlete specific tutoring is a "benefit" mandated by the NCAA (16.3.1.1). However, what UNC did went beyond the bounds of the described benefit and therefore was determined to be an "extra benefit." This pulls it out of the restitution provision and the athletes are ineligible.

In the cases of the other NOAs, the NCAA is not asking whether those Universities believe the involved athletes were ineligible. That is not the purpose of the request, though I see why you thought that's why I was getting at that. My point was poorly phrased. The purpose of the request is to provide the schools the opportunity to state whether the school believes there are mitigating circumstances that would warrant waiving any vacating of victories. An assumption of ineligibility is implicit.

 

[carbonlib23]

the new "self reporting" is merely a ploy for them to delay their response to the NCAA regarding the NOA......if they can stagger the clock, they MIGHT just get enough 90 day delays to make it through march with their "lock for the natty" team this year....