North Carolina Scandal Etc

[Trouthound]

I don't know the intent of your thread OP, but this is NOT the forum for it.
I am a Jayhawk and guest here so try to be respectful so I can stay and say.

But to come here and talk UNC, their campus, and refer to serious violations as "poo poo" is not only hanging your own "kick me" sign, but is pretty disrespectful.

I loved Roy when he was at KU. But am really disappointed in him now.

This scandal is HUGE and OF COURSE he knew about it! When at KU, the man was such a control freak that he knew pretty much everything. That didn't change man. He knew.

I'm just glad that he kept it clean here. And I do think he ran a clean program at KU.

 

[DodgerDukie1985]

Hey Bobby who are you trying to convince ? the rest of the sports world or yourself ?

Definitely trying to convince himself. There's no chance of convincing the rest of the sports world that Carolina athletics aren't corrupt to the core.

It's funny to me if for no other reason than if this were going on with Duke and Krzyzewski or Kentucky and Pitino/Tubby/Cal for 20+ years, Carolina fans would be screaming from their rooftops about how they should go down in flames. But because it's Carolina and Dean/Roy, they're not having any of it.

 

[Xception]

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.

UNC wants no part of a deposition , the N&O can print whatever they want and UNC will never go after them .

 

[Xception]

OJ Simpson named Time magazines man of the year 1994

 

[bucsrule8872]

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.

Do you really think that Meeks can guard Poythress? He's not a great defender by any stretch of the imagination.

Both Poythress (when healthy) and Labissiere play above the rim. Meeks, not so much. Once again, I believe Meeks will struggle to contain either one of those guys.

I respect your opinion, but disagree with it.

 

[Xception]

If I'm ever down that way ima drop a deuce somewhere on that campus

 

[UK till Death]

If I'm ever down that way ima drop a deuce somewhere on that campus

Right on that pedestal would be the most appropriate spot...

Or center court at the Dean dome.

 

[TheTruCatsFan]

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

Yes, but what about ROY AND STAFF!!!? They're still great right?

AFAM!!!!!!
WOMENS BASKETBALL AND MENS SOCCER!!!!!

 

[Kycatspaws]

In the old days cheating scoundrels got a good tar and feathering before getting run out of town. That was old time justice back in the day.

 

[Trouthound]

UNC is NOT winning the championship this year. But that is clearly what they are betting all of their chips on.

Listen. Roy had better teams at Kansas that did not win it all.

This year is totally up for grabs. Maryland has a fine team, KU is in the hunt (if we can make it out of the first weekend. I mean ****ING REALLY Jayhawks?)

UK is good as usual but guard heavy, bigs light.

Iowa State will be good, but new coach.

Arizona is good, but not great.

The Zags are in there.

Roy's team may look good on paper, in a year of equality, but they will not live up to expectations. They never do.

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

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

(Artistic license... lol)

Mary Willingham & Rashad.McCants, they some snitches.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

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.

Uh, here's one of many examples (allegation #2, Southern Miss):

"It is alleged that during the 2012-13 through 2014-15 academic years, XXXX, then head men's basketball coach, violated the NCAA principles of ethical conduct and financial aid legislation when he provided an impermissible source of financial aid to nonqualifier men's basketball studentathletes YYYY and ZZZZ. Additionally, both student-athletes later competed for and received travel expenses from the institution and were not withheld from competition for their ineligibility"

Here's the first "ineligi" that comes up when you search (Hawaii):

"Subsequently, XXXX competed while ineligible during the 2012-13 and 2013-14 academic years."

Did you really read the NOAs and miss this and all the other instances (I think there's like 7 or 8 more players mentioned in the Southern Miss NOA and that is just at a quick glance)?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

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.

I think what you're saying is that UNC got a favorable NOA, when considering the wording. This I don't know. I guess we'll just have to wait for that.

I was simply saying that the last item in the Request for Supplemental Information Section (bullet points 1 - 7) are word-for-word for all three NOAs. Hence, I'm assuming they're copy&pasted to all NOAs and are not identifying anything implicit in the NOA. Perhaps I used shoddy comparisons, but that is all I was saying. So, we have two NOAs which specifically mention ineligible players and one that doesn't. I'm still going to stand by my previous claims, that no MBB players will be deemed ineligible by the COI. However, you have explained a lot of the nuts and bolts for all of us so thanks again.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Definitely trying to convince himself. There's no chance of convincing the rest of the sports world that Carolina athletics aren't corrupt to the core.

It's funny to me if for no other reason than if this were going on with Duke and Krzyzewski or Kentucky and Pitino/Tubby/Cal for 20+ years, Carolina fans would be screaming from their rooftops about how they should go down in flames. But because it's Carolina and Dean/Roy, they're not having any of it.

How would you act if it was Duke and K? Would you demand for Duke/K to open their doors to the NCAA, media and anyone else? Would you not point out when people said incorrect things? I think Duke has been incredibly fortunate with the NCAA and the media during K's career. Perhaps throwing stones is not the best way to go about this...but that's just me.

 

[Wildcat-in-STL]

God bless the "special" people like the OP. Its not their fault they were born with the problems they have

 

[UKnCincy]

I think what you're saying is that UNC got a favorable NOA, when considering the wording. This I don't know. I guess we'll just have to wait for that.

I was simply saying that the last item in the Request for Supplemental Information Section (bullet points 1 - 7) are word-for-word for all three NOAs. Hence, I'm assuming they're copy&pasted to all NOAs and are not identifying anything implicit in the NOA. Perhaps I used shoddy comparisons, but that is all I was saying. So, we have two NOAs which specifically mention ineligible players and one that doesn't. I'm still going to stand by my previous claims, that no MBB players will be deemed ineligible by the COI. However, you have explained a lot of the nuts and bolts for all of us so thanks again.

Not saying that in the slightest. I'm saying the enforcement group will construct the NOA in the fashion they believe will be most conducive to supporting the charges. And use of boilerplate language is not an indication of blanket inclusion. That's not how these work.

You can stand by your claim all you want. However, the bylaws are crystal clear on this.

"If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."
​

The moment the NCAA determined that these exceeded the normal scope of academic support & involved institutional staff, it went from being a "benefit" to an "extra benefit." At that point, whether or not there is monetary value attached becomes irrelevant. These players were ineligible.

NCAA may choose leniency with respect to the exact sanctions (e.g., vacating wins), but their ineligibility is firmly established. However, given the significant aggravating factors (e.g., repeat offender, massive number of athletes, significant time frame) I would be surprised if the COI elected to go easy on UNC. The facts simply don't support that approach.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Not saying that in the slightest. I'm saying the enforcement group will construct the NOA in the fashion they believe will be most conducive to supporting the charges. And use of boilerplate language is not an indication of blanket inclusion. That's not how these work.

You can stand by your claim all you want. However, the bylaws are crystal clear on this.

"If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."
​

The moment the NCAA determined that these exceeded the normal scope of academic support & involved institutional staff, it went from being a "benefit" to an "extra benefit." At that point, whether or not there is monetary value attached becomes irrelevant. These players were ineligible.

NCAA may choose leniency with respect to the exact sanctions (e.g., vacating wins), but their ineligibility is firmly established. However, given the significant mitigating factors (e.g., repeat offender, massive number of athletes, significant time frame) I would be surprised if the COI elected to go easy on UNC. The facts simply don't support that approach.

Oh I agree, there's no way the COI let's them keep wins if what you say is in fact correct for this case. They can't. If what you say is correct, then they will have to vacate several years worth of games. However, I'm not so sure it's as clear as you're saying. You clearly know more about this than I, but I really feel like you're wrong (or at least missing something here). I know you don't think it's relevant, but the omission of alleging MBB players were ineligible in the NOA is pretty telling to me. Especially when considering other NOAs available for reading. Also, I went and read the article you mentioned with the comments from Stacey Osbourn and she says the following:

“the short answer is that yes, academic impermissible benefits can affect eligibility.”

So, either she's not as familiar with the bylaws as you, or there's something else that we're missing here. Either way, we should no the answer about ineligible players and vacating wins/banners in a few months. Additionally, in the same article, Stuart Brown seems to disagree with the notion that they're automatically ineligible as well (perhaps this is related to his assumption of which format will be used?).

Oh yeah, this quote that you posted, where is it in the NOA (there are just too many "benefits", "student-athletes" and so on to search)? Thanks again for the posts.

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

Bobby has scoured the world wide web far and wide searching for universities sanctioned by the NCAA in an attempt to compare the NOA'S of those schools to UNC***'s NOA. Save yourself some time Bobby and read this little tidbit from UNC***'s AD Bubba Cunningham:

''The enforcement staff and the committee on infractions have always said no two cases are alike,'' Cunningham said Friday night. ''They evaluate the facts of each case independently"

http://www.foxsports.com/college-ba...tions-have-no-impact-on-uncs-ncaa-case-030615

 

[UKnCincy]

Oh I agree, there's no way the COI let's them keep wins if what you say is in fact correct for this case. They can't. If what you say is correct, then they will have to vacate several years worth of games. However, I'm not so sure it's as clear as you're saying. You clearly know more about this than I, but I really feel like you're wrong (or at least missing something here). I know you don't think it's relevant, but the omission of alleging MBB players were ineligible in the NOA is pretty telling to me. Especially when considering other NOAs available for reading. Also, I went and read the article you mentioned with the comments from Stacey Osbourn and she says the following:

“the short answer is that yes, academic impermissible benefits can affect eligibility.”

So, either she's not as familiar with the bylaws as you, or there's something else that we're missing here. Either way, we should no the answer about ineligible players and vacating wins/banners in a few months. Additionally, in the same article, Stuart Brown seems to disagree with the notion that they're automatically ineligible as well (perhaps this is related to his assumption of which format will be used?).

Oh yeah, this quote that you posted, where is it in the NOA (there are just too many "benefits", "student-athletes" and so on to search)? Thanks again for the posts.

The NCAA does not "have" to vacate wins if they are ineligible. The 2012-2013 bylaws, which they'll use for the penalties, gives the COI a menu of options for sanctioning (19.5.2). It states: "The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties..." The COI is not bound by the bylaws to vacate wins just because an ineligible player was used. Precedent may bind them, but not the bylaws.

Regarding Stacey Osburn, I would assume that she is plenty familiar with the bylaws - or at least has access to those who are. Her quote is likely an indication of one two things. One, she may just be pointing out that just because a benefit is "impermissible" does not necessarily mean that it is also "extra." It can simply be an academic impermissible "benefit", in which case it is an institutional violation with no impact to eligibility. Or it may be related to Andrew Carter not asking the right question (his article indicates he clearly doesn't understand how to apply 16.01.1.1).

With respect to the first option, the new litmus test for impermissible academic assistance includes six criteria. Academic impermissible assistance must meet all 6 critieria to rise to the level of "extra benefit." The NCAA has been presenting this new framework during this year's Regional Rules Seminars. Point being, just because something is impermissible doesn't mean it's "extra." The NOA however, clearly defines these as "extra."

Regarding the quote I included in my previous post, it's from the 2014-2015 bylaws, not the NOA. Bylaw 16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violations.

With respect to Stuart Brown's quote, I wouldn't necessarily take that at face value. As with Stacey Osburn, it's unclear what question Andrew Carter actually asked him.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

The NCAA does not "have" to vacate wins if they are ineligible. The 2012-2013 bylaws, which they'll use for the penalties, gives the COI a menu of options for sanctioning (19.5.2). It states: "The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties..." The COI is not bound by the bylaws to vacate wins just because an ineligible player was used. Precedent may bind them, but not the bylaws.

Regarding Stacey Osburn, I would assume that she is plenty familiar with the bylaws - or at least has access to those who are. Her quote is likely an indication of one two things. One, she may just be pointing out that just because a benefit is "impermissible" does not necessarily mean that it is also "extra." It can simply be an academic impermissible "benefit", in which case it is an institutional violation with no impact to eligibility. Or it may be related to Andrew Carter not asking the right question (his article indicates he clearly doesn't understand how to apply 16.01.1.1).

With respect to the first option, the new litmus test for impermissible academic assistance includes six criteria. Academic impermissible assistance must meet all 6 critieria to rise to the level of "extra benefit." The NCAA has been presenting this new framework during this year's Regional Rules Seminars. Point being, just because something is impermissible doesn't mean it's "extra." The NOA however, clearly defines these as "extra."

Regarding the quote I included in my previous post, it's from the 2014-2015 bylaws, not the NOA. Bylaw 16.01.1 Eligibility Effect of Violations.

With respect to Stuart Brown's quote, I wouldn't necessarily take that at face value. As with Stacey Osburn, it's unclear what question Andrew Carter actually asked him.

I need more time to really read through this response and process it, but I just wanted to clarify what I meant. I was saying that with the media pressure and the legal troubles there is no way, imo, that if the NCAA can show some players were ineligible then they will force UNC to vacate wins.

I look forward to really going through this after some rest. Thanks again.

 

[Xception]

Definitely trying to convince himself. There's no chance of convincing the rest of the sports world that Carolina athletics aren't corrupt to the core.

It's funny to me if for no other reason than if this were going on with Duke and Krzyzewski or Kentucky and Pitino/Tubby/Cal for 20+ years, Carolina fans would be screaming from their rooftops about how they should go down in flames. But because it's Carolina and Dean/Roy, they're not having any of it.

They would also be rambling on about how that could never happen at Carolina and how proud they are of being a fan of a school that does things the right way .

 

[jarms24]

You clearly know more about this than I, but I really feel like you're wrong

 

[preacherfan]

 

[Xception]

This is touching awesome , I love it .

 

[preacherfan]

How would you act if it was Duke and K? Would you demand for Duke/K to open their doors to the NCAA, media and anyone else? Would you not point out when people said incorrect things? I think Duke has been incredibly fortunate with the NCAA and the media during K's career. Perhaps throwing stones is not the best way to go about this...but that's just me.

Wow! Just wow! So, the guy who takes some extra ketchup packs from MacDonalds should not criticize Bermie Madoff?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Wow! Just wow! So, the guy who takes some extra ketchup packs from MacDonalds should not criticize Bermie Madoff?

You were one of the ones crying about Duke not getting hammered over Maggette on this board a few months ago. You were going on and on how dirty K and Duke were and still are. I guess when it comes to UNC your inferiority complex takes precedence over all else.

 

[Hoskins91]

Do you really think that Meeks can guard Poythress? He's not a great defender by any stretch of the imagination.

Both Poythress (when healthy) and Labissiere play above the rim. Meeks, not so much. Once again, I believe Meeks will struggle to contain either one of those guys.

I respect your opinion, but disagree with it.

In order to finish at the rim you have to get there first, and Poythress has no way of doing that. He's not gonna post a center up, he can't dribble, and he's not much of a shooter. The only way he's a big factor is if he kills them on the boards or we are able to get out in transition frequently. I don't think Meeks is a good defensive player. The problem is Poythress isn't much of a scorer.

 

[Bigblueforever]

Yes, but what about ROY AND STAFF!!!? They're still great right?

AFAM!!!!!!
WOMENS BASKETBALL AND MENS SOCCER!!!!!

No, No way is Roy Williams & Staff are great, unless there great at Cheating.

 

[preacherfan]

You were one of the ones crying about Duke not getting hammered over Maggette on this board a few months ago. You were going on and on how dirty K and Duke were and still are. I guess when it comes to UNC your inferiority complex takes precedence over all else.

I realize that I exaggerated in my illustration because I know Duke should have been punished for the Maggette scandal but. let's get real, what punishment is appropriate for a HS kid taking $2K? I have always said that vacating games is a bit much for that but Duke should have returned some revenue or faced some kind of punishment.

But, Maggette pales in comparison to Wheels for Heels. We know that went a lot deeper than PJ. But, the thousands of dollars that were spent providing him with wheels is beyond belief. We know other players were involved but it was never investigated. UNC buried it.

But, 3 year sociology degrees and a job for Duhon's mom and Lance Thomas can't come close to the absolute sceptic tank stink arising from Chapel Hill for coaches from Dean to Roy being involved in a diploma mill in which multiple players received degrees and credits without learning anything. To take a language class and not know a single word of that language is why we call those classes fake. Only a complete moron would argue against that point.

 

[JPScott]

But, Maggette pales in comparison to Wheels for Heels. We know that went a lot deeper than PJ. But, the thousands of dollars that were spent providing him with wheels is beyond belief. We know other players were involved but it was never investigated. UNC buried it.

The thing about Wheels for Heels that I never understood is why most people seem content to assume that Fats was simply giving these players rides just for kicks.

Maybe I'm too much of a conspiracy theorist but when you have a known drug felon 'lending' his SUV to some guys to 'joy ride' to Durham and they end up having to throw out weed and weapons on the way back to avoid it being found on them, it says to me that 'MAYBE' they were doing a little more than simply joyriding.

It also bugs me about the link between Fats and his girlfriend who ran the learning center where a number of these athletes were taken to be certified as learning disabled. Why hasn't this been followed up on?

To me that's one of the most explosive allegations (along with the Tami Hansbrough/Dental School stuff) because it show direct institutional involvement in serious breaches of conduct (if not criminal behavior). And these are allegations BTW which, unlike Brad Bethel likes to claim, have never been formally been investigated by any of the numerous studies, and have largely been ignored by the mainstream press.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

You were one of the ones crying about Duke not getting hammered over Maggette on this board a few months ago. You were going on and on how dirty K and Duke were and still are. I guess when it comes to UNC your inferiority complex takes precedence over all else.

Bobby, how could you ever come up with any of us having an inferiority complex with UNCheat. You must be delusional. Let's see, UNCheat must have more titles then, right? Huh, nope, that's not it, even if the cheaters count their cute Helms titles. Maybe it's total wins? Huh, nope again. I'm starting to get confused about this "inferiority complex" you referred to. Oh, I know, it's your stellar academic reputation. Wait, what? You're on accreditation probation over fake classes that have been going on for a quarter century and used to keep players eligible? Well, that can't be it. Last chance guess, maybe it's just the level of student athletes UNCheat admits to the school? Whoa, what's that I read? How in the world do you let illiterate kids get admitted to such a high level academic institution like UNCheat, oh yeah, almost forgot, you only care about winning basketball games and it doesn't matter if they're able to read and perform college level studies. You had that covered with the fake classes and fake grades handed out by a fake professor.

Sheesh Bobby, you may have to explain this one to me. I don't have a UNCheat education and simply don't understand. I think it's over my simple little head.

 

[preacherfan]

unlike Brad Bethel likes to claim, have never been formally been investigated by any of the numerous studies, and have largely been ignored by the mainstream press.

Speaking of Bethel, I noticed that he lists himself as an "educator" in his blog. I find it strange that an "educator" would spend an inordinate amount of time defending the very system that cheated hundreds or thousands of students out of a real education. By arguing that the classes weren't fake, which they were, he seems to be trying to justify credits being given for little to no learning. Hopefully, he stays in the shoe store and doesn't return to being an "educator."

 

[crazyqx83]

UNC is NOT winning the championship this year. But that is clearly what they are betting all of their chips on.

Listen. Roy had better teams at Kansas that did not win it all.

This year is totally up for grabs. Maryland has a fine team, KU is in the hunt (if we can make it out of the first weekend. I mean ****ING REALLY Jayhawks?)

UK is good as usual but guard heavy, bigs light.

Iowa State will be good, but new coach.

Arizona is good, but not great.

The Zags are in there.

Roy's team may look good on paper, in a year of equality, but they will not live up to expectations. They never do.

Duke won the title last year with 1 competent player over 6'7. We will have 4 maybe 5.

Go polish bill's bald spot and your helms banners.

 

[jarms24]

Finally got clarification on the 22 of 25 statistic. I misread the stat. It wasn't non athletes. 22 of the first 25 athlete enrollments were Dean Smith's players. Common sense and logic both dictate that this was primarily for mbb.

 

[IdaCat]

BDevilU Weekly reminder for lurking Hole fans and PR trolls:

 

[jarms24]

Yep, you can pretty much rule out wbb, soccer, baseball, water polo, and chess with the above statistic. Primarily for mbb and mbb benefited the most from it.

 

[Bigblueforever]

BDevilU Weekly reminder for lurking Hole fans and PR trolls:

Then it's time the NCAA to give UNC what they desire, take away all games & NCS from 1989 up to that 20+ years of cheating.

 

[preacherfan]

BDevilU Weekly reminder for lurking Hole fans and PR trolls:

That would make a GREAT slide for the UNC documentary! Afterall, isn't the documentary going to present the facts?

 

[BBUK]

That would make a GREAT slide for the UNC documentary! Afterall, isn't the documentary going to present the facts?

rotflcgu That would be too literal for the common uncheat fan to take...if they were a uncheat grad they may not be able to read it anyway so nothing gained...(I liked it.)

 

[kybassfan]

BDevilU Weekly reminder for lurking Hole fans and PR trolls:

Stunning numbers.