North Carolina Scandal Etc

[preacherfan]

No. That is also wrong.

Oh no, don't go twisting and snaking about trying to back-track now. You BOTH said games will be vacated and you BOTH said they clearly used ineligible players. You and him argued with me over both of this topics for weeks, if not months. You and him both insisted the classes were fake, then tried to use that to make further implications about eligibility. You can try to snake your way out of it, but everyone here knows where you stood on these arguments and what you said. So, own it. Don't half-step. Don't try to weasel out of what you said.

And, as we made those arguments we BOTH repeatedly said that we had NO idea how the NCAA would rule. We debated the NCAA with you.

Maggette was CLEARLY ineligible but the NCAA ruled he wasn't. JPS and I both don't trust the NCAA to do the right thing. And, for the record, yeah, UNC used ineligible players but UNC will never admit to doing that because the institution is completely corrupt.

 

[Xception]

McCants didn't go to class and made the Deans list , that's fraudulent and it doesn't take an admission from UNC for it to be so . If they weren't fraudulent then UNC should still be offering them without change and they wouldn't be on probation with SACS but as it is right now you have a mouf full of SAC .

 

[the stat man]

Hey Bobby, why in the heck don't you just give it up lol. They CHEATED, get it, they did for TWENTY YEARS !! now they have been caught ! The whole basketball world knows it . you guys trying to explain it away makes you look that much worse. JUST FOR ONCE do the right thing and own up to it, and quit acting like its all perfectly fine, because its not.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

And, as we made those arguments we BOTH repeatedly said that we had NO idea how the NCAA would rule. We debated the NCAA with you.

Maggette was CLEARLY ineligible but the NCAA ruled he wasn't. JPS and I both don't trust the NCAA to do the right thing. And, for the record, yeah, UNC used ineligible players but UNC will never admit to doing that because the institution is completely corrupt.

Ok, so I see you're already backing out of what you said a few months ago.

Oh, by the way, Maggette was NOT ineligible. We also already had this discussion. Several posters explained this to you.

It's fine. Keep making your bold statements, putting them off as facts, and then when you get called on it, trying to snake out and deny what you said. I'm sure in a few months you'll say that you never said you thought they should be ineligible. Good try though.

 

[preacherfan]

Ok, so I see you're already backing out of what you said a few months ago.

Oh, by the way, Maggette was NOT ineligible. We also already had this discussion. Several posters explained this to you.

It's fine. Keep making your bold statements, putting them off as facts, and then when you get called on it, trying to snake out and deny what you said. I'm sure in a few months you'll say that you never said you thought they should be ineligible. Good try though.

Dude, have it your way. Keep selling shoes and let us know when you have enough money to finish your "documentary." We thought it would be out by now!

 

[UKnCincy]

You see, right here is what I cannot understand. Where does it say "fraudulent" courses in the NOA? Where has anyone, other than you and other posters or some in the media with clear agendas, said the classes were fraudulent? UNC didn't call them fraudulent. The NCAA doesn't call them fraudulent. Who that really matters has called them fraudulent?

You're setting yourself up for a lot of crying about how the NCAA doesn't punish their favorites by taking other people's word for what is going on...especially when they couldn't be further from the truth. Are you even curious why those in the media who are known for their unbiased opinions are saying that there's little the NCAA can/should do to UNC? For example, everyone respects Jay Bilas' and his opinions. What has he said?

SACS has called them fraudulent. The University's Accrediting Agency certainly qualifies as someone who "really matters." From page one of the letter SACS sent to UNC after the Wainstein report:

"The administration's failure, prior to the review of the SACSCOC Special Committee, to examine the full impact of these 'academic irregularities' beyond the professional activities of two people; evidence that some University faculty and staff were aware of the fraud and played a part in directing students toward the classes; and additional evidence in the report supporting the fact that students 'received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work' (page 3, Cadwalader) cause SACSCOC to raise questions about the University's compliance with the following standards..."
​

Further, on page 2 of the same letter, SACS writes:

"...clearly refutes the institution's claims that the academic fraud was relegated to the unethical actions of two people."
​

It is equally important to note that UNC did not challenge SACS' labeling of this as fraud.

Lastly, the fact that the word "fraud" fails to appear in the NOA is meaningless and simply indicates you don't understand how the process works. The NCAA generally will not call something fraud unless the school calls it fraud first. UNC obviously has incentive to avoid calling this fraud and the NCAA is not going to indicate otherwise. However, that does not mean the NCAA does not view these as fraud. It also does not mean that the COI will view this as something less serious, simply because the word fraud is missing. It's clear to both the NCAA and the COI what really happened here.

​

 

[preacherfan]

SACS has called them fraudulent. The University's Accrediting Agency certainly qualifies as someone who "really matters." From page one of the letter SACS sent to UNC after the Wainstein report:

"The administration's failure, prior to the review of the SACSCOC Special Committee, to examine the full impact of these 'academic irregularities' beyond the professional activities of two people; evidence that some University faculty and staff were aware of the fraud and played a part in directing students toward the classes; and additional evidence in the report supporting the fact that students 'received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work' (page 3, Cadwalader) cause SACSCOC to raise questions about the University's compliance with the following standards..."
​

Further, on page 2 of the same letter, SACS writes:

"...clearly refutes the institution's claims that the academic fraud was relegated to the unethical actions of two people."
​

It is equally important to note that UNC did not challenge SACS' labeling of this as fraud.

Lastly, the fact that the word "fraud" fails to appear in the NOA is meaningless and simply indicates you don't understand how the process works. The NCAA generally will not call something fraud unless the school calls it fraud first. UNC obviously has incentive to avoid calling this fraud and the NCAA is not going to indicate otherwise. However, that does not mean the NCAA does not view these as fraud. It also does not mean that the COI will view this as something less serious, simply because the word fraud is missing. It's clear to both the NCAA and the COI what really happened here.

​

Can we all say, "KABOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!????"

 

[Aike]

SACS has called them fraudulent. The University's Accrediting Agency certainly qualifies as someone who "really matters." From page one of the letter SACS sent to UNC after the Wainstein report:

"The administration's failure, prior to the review of the SACSCOC Special Committee, to examine the full impact of these 'academic irregularities' beyond the professional activities of two people; evidence that some University faculty and staff were aware of the fraud and played a part in directing students toward the classes; and additional evidence in the report supporting the fact that students 'received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work' (page 3, Cadwalader) cause SACSCOC to raise questions about the University's compliance with the following standards..."
​

Further, on page 2 of the same letter, SACS writes:

"...clearly refutes the institution's claims that the academic fraud was relegated to the unethical actions of two people."
​

It is equally important to note that UNC did not challenge SACS' labeling of this as fraud.

Lastly, the fact that the word "fraud" fails to appear in the NOA is meaningless and simply indicates you don't understand how the process works. The NCAA generally will not call something fraud unless the school calls it fraud first. UNC obviously has incentive to avoid calling this fraud and the NCAA is not going to indicate otherwise. However, that does not mean the NCAA does not view these as fraud. It also does not mean that the COI will view this as something less serious, simply because the word fraud is missing. It's clear to both the NCAA and the COI what really happened here.

​

Thanks for taking the time to do that. My patience for trolls is wearing thin.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

SACS has called them fraudulent. The University's Accrediting Agency certainly qualifies as someone who "really matters." From page one of the letter SACS sent to UNC after the Wainstein report:

"The administration's failure, prior to the review of the SACSCOC Special Committee, to examine the full impact of these 'academic irregularities' beyond the professional activities of two people; evidence that some University faculty and staff were aware of the fraud and played a part in directing students toward the classes; and additional evidence in the report supporting the fact that students 'received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work' (page 3, Cadwalader) cause SACSCOC to raise questions about the University's compliance with the following standards..."
​

Further, on page 2 of the same letter, SACS writes:

"...clearly refutes the institution's claims that the academic fraud was relegated to the unethical actions of two people."
​

It is equally important to note that UNC did not challenge SACS' labeling of this as fraud.

Lastly, the fact that the word "fraud" fails to appear in the NOA is meaningless and simply indicates you don't understand how the process works. The NCAA generally will not call something fraud unless the school calls it fraud first. UNC obviously has incentive to avoid calling this fraud and the NCAA is not going to indicate otherwise. However, that does not mean the NCAA does not view these as fraud. It also does not mean that the COI will view this as something less serious, simply because the word fraud is missing. It's clear to both the NCAA and the COI what really happened here.

​

So, is SACS going to force them to sit out the tourney? Remember, I said "who that really matters" has called them fraudulent. SACS oversees the university, I don't believe they have any say in their athletics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[UKnCincy]

So, is SACS going to force them to sit out the tourney? Remember, I said "who that really matters" has called them fraudulent. SACS oversees the university, I don't believe they have any say in their athletics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Actually, your post was:

"Where has anyone, other than you and other posters or some in the media with clear agendas, said the classes were fraudulent? UNC didn't call them fraudulent. The NCAA doesn't call them fraudulent. Who that really matters has called them fraudulent?"
​

You included several other groups in that post, like the media and message board posters, who also don't have any bearing on a COI ruling. The implication being that this was only being called "fraud" by those with an agenda and without any real bearing on the situation. Clearly, with SACS calling this fraud, you can't hide behind that assertion. This was unequivocally academic fraud, and both SACS and UNC agree on this point. The first portion of my post was simply to make sure everyone was grounded on that fact, since it was being debated.

Secondly, I never said SACS had any bearing on the NCAA process. That was the point of my last paragraph. Perhaps you should read my entire post before responding.

 

[mebeblue2]

So, is SACS going to force them to sit out the tourney? Remember, I said "who that really matters" has called them fraudulent. SACS oversees the university, I don't believe they have any say in their athletics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

i hope you are intelligent enough to understand that the NCAA will without a doubt look at the SACS report, and use it as evidence against UNC

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

So, is SACS going to force them to sit out the tourney? Remember, I said "who that really matters" has called them fraudulent. SACS oversees the university, I don't believe they have any say in their athletics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

Really, that's your response. The only agency that oversees UNCheats academic standards calls the classes fraud but that is irrelevant to you? The NCAA can read too and they know everyone else knows. They are not limited by what they declared in the NOA.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

SACS has called them fraudulent. The University's Accrediting Agency certainly qualifies as someone who "really matters." From page one of the letter SACS sent to UNC after the Wainstein report:

"The administration's failure, prior to the review of the SACSCOC Special Committee, to examine the full impact of these 'academic irregularities' beyond the professional activities of two people; evidence that some University faculty and staff were aware of the fraud and played a part in directing students toward the classes; and additional evidence in the report supporting the fact that students 'received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work' (page 3, Cadwalader) cause SACSCOC to raise questions about the University's compliance with the following standards..."
​

Further, on page 2 of the same letter, SACS writes:

"...clearly refutes the institution's claims that the academic fraud was relegated to the unethical actions of two people."
​

It is equally important to note that UNC did not challenge SACS' labeling of this as fraud.

Lastly, the fact that the word "fraud" fails to appear in the NOA is meaningless and simply indicates you don't understand how the process works. The NCAA generally will not call something fraud unless the school calls it fraud first. UNC obviously has incentive to avoid calling this fraud and the NCAA is not going to indicate otherwise. However, that does not mean the NCAA does not view these as fraud. It also does not mean that the COI will view this as something less serious, simply because the word fraud is missing. It's clear to both the NCAA and the COI what really happened here.

​

This needs a mic drop emoticon.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Actually, your post was:

"Where has anyone, other than you and other posters or some in the media with clear agendas, said the classes were fraudulent? UNC didn't call them fraudulent. The NCAA doesn't call them fraudulent. Who that really matters has called them fraudulent?"
​

You included several other groups in that post, like the media and message board posters, who also don't have any bearing on a COI ruling. The implication being that this was only being called "fraud" by those with an agenda and without any real bearing on the situation. Clearly, with SACS calling this fraud, you can't hide behind that assertion. This was unequivocally academic fraud, and both SACS and UNC agree on this point. The first portion of my post was simply to make sure everyone was grounded on that fact, since it was being debated.

Secondly, I never said SACS had any bearing on the NCAA process. That was the point of my last paragraph. Perhaps you should read my entire post before responding.

Uh, pretty sure that UNC did not call the courses fraudulent.

So, SMU and Syracuse both informed the NCAA they committed academic fraud, it wasn't the NCAA finding this out during their investigation? That is the only reason the NCAA doesn't allege they committed fraud and that is why they charged the academic advisers with using preferential treatment towards athletes when registering them for courses rather than academic fraud?

Finally, once again, UNC nor the NCAA called it fraud. The NOA doesn't call it fraud. Who THAT MATTERS to athletics have called this fraud?

 

[UKnCincy]

Uh, pretty sure that UNC did not call the courses fraudulent.

So, SMU and Syracuse both informed the NCAA they committed academic fraud, it wasn't the NCAA finding this out during their investigation? That is the only reason the NCAA doesn't allege they committed fraud and that is why they charged the academic advisers with using preferential treatment towards athletes when registering them for courses rather than academic fraud?

Finally, once again, UNC nor the NCAA called it fraud. The NOA doesn't call it fraud. Who THAT MATTERS to athletics have called this fraud?

Correct, if the SMU and Syracuse NOAs called it fraud, it was because the schools agreed on this with the NCAA during the investigations. If the schools had insisted on calling it something else, the NCAA would not have called it fraud. If the NCAA insisted it was fraud, then the enforcement staff would have needed to go to the AMA staff to request a formal interpretation. Generally, the evidence is strong enough that this isn't needed and they feel they can "prosecute" the case with the evidence they have and a charge of impermissible extra benefits. The drafting of an NOA (including the allegations that are included) is a joint process between the school and enforcement staff. The language used is reflective of this process, nothing more.

Finally, UNC never challenged SACS calling this fraud. In criminal justice parlance, this would called a "no contest plea." Point being, UNC is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They can tell the NCAA and the world that it was "irregularities" all they want. However, where it really matters (i.e., SACS investigation), UNC conceded that this was fraud.

 

[jarms24]

This needs a mic drop emoticon.

 

[jarms24]

@UKnCincy ITT ...

@BobbyG_tickle_swerv ITT ...

 

[Bodvar Bjarki]

Notice that other fans of other programs can come on our board and make their case without getting the boot. Now try to go over to the UNC or UL boards and make a case fairly against them and see how fast you get shown the door.

That says a lot about the difference between us... and them. Our fanbase is big enough to allow dissent while their tiny little micromanaged worlds cannot handle or process dissent. It's the same difference as the United States and some 3rd world banana republic.

 

[kybassfan]

So, is SACS going to force them to sit out the tourney? Remember, I said "who that really matters" has called them fraudulent. SACS oversees the university, I don't believe they have any say in their athletics. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

SACS can provide material evidence to the NCAA which can force the cheating scum bags that you support to sit out the tourney. Right now, I'd say the cheating scums are solely dependent on the inefficiency and incompetence of the NCAA to avoid exactly that action. Also it's possible your cheating scum fraudulent university may chose to provide more evidence of their deception in an effort to further delay the justice that their unparalleled scandalous ways have unearned.

Bobbi perve, you sound like a convict hoping for reprieve due to the arresting officer forgetting your Miranda Rights. It's only through such incompetence that the rest of us will be forced to tolerate such riffraff as NC in competition. Aren't you proud to support such corruption?

 

[Xception]

Somebody is getting their field plowed .

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Correct, if the SMU and Syracuse NOAs called it fraud, it was because the schools agreed on this with the NCAA during the investigations. If the schools had insisted on calling it something else, the NCAA would not have called it fraud. If the NCAA insisted it was fraud, then the enforcement staff would have needed to go to the AMA staff to request a formal interpretation. Generally, the evidence is strong enough that this isn't needed and they feel they can "prosecute" the case with the evidence they have and a charge of impermissible extra benefits. The drafting of an NOA (including the allegations that are included) is a joint process between the school and enforcement staff. The language used is reflective of this process, nothing more.

Finally, UNC never challenged SACS calling this fraud. In criminal justice parlance, this would called a "no contest plea." Point being, UNC is speaking out of both sides of their mouth. They can tell the NCAA and the world that it was "irregularities" all they want. However, where it really matters (i.e., SACS investigation), UNC conceded that this was fraud.

So you're saying the NCAA didn't think it was fraud, or they didn't want to pursue this as academic fraud. Whereas in the SMU cases and Syracuse cases they insisted on calling it academic fraud. So, right there should tell you something about those cases versus UNC's case. In one case, the NCAA had sufficient evidence to feel compelled to call it academic fraud, in the other the NCAA conceded (to use your own word) it was not fraud. Great, so we both agree where it matters most (to athletics/NCAA), no academic fraud was committed.

Also, you do realize the big impermissible benefits were for advisers giving preference to athletes, signing them up for these courses before other regular students were able to register. NOT FOR THE COURSES THEMSELVES. So, this doesn't even sound like the NCAA conceded to UNC's assertion that no fraud took place, they didn't even mention the courses at all as being even substandard. Why on earth would they not go after these courses if they thought it was simply semantics?

How does it "really matter" with SACS? I'm talking about penalties specific to the athletic teams.

Finally, I think you're being incredibly loose with your interpretation of how the NOA is drafted. The COI is not going to go back and add new things to the list of allegations. And as such, the NCAA is not going to minimize the significance of their wording or lessen the severity of the allegations simply to please a university. I think it's pretty clear to most why in the NOA the NCAA went after impermissible benefits and it wasn't because UNC insisted they not call it fraud (especially when you see the two have no connection to each other -- once again THE CLASSES WERE NOT THE BENEFITS).

So, just so we're on the same page. The NCAA never called those classes fake. UNC never called those classes fake. The classes still count towards a degree for those who took them. Yet, somehow, the NCAA is going to use those classes to rule players ineligible.

Finally, finally, why on earth would the NCAA not call it fraud if the evidence was strong? You said in general the evidence is usually strong enough to confirm fraud and so the NCAA doesn't bother with the wording and will call it impermissible benefits. However, the punishments are clearly different according to their own bylaws. Why on earth would they handicap themselves like this, as you're suggesting they routinely do? It makes no sense. No, I'm pretty sure that if the NCAA thinks fraud occurred and thinks they can show fraud occurred then they'll put it in the NOA as fraud. If they don't think it occurred or if they don't think they can prove it then they won't put it in the NOA. It just doesn't pass the common sense test otherwise.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Somebody is getting their field plowed .

Perhaps. But at least we'll see how was right after the NCAA rules. In this argument there will be a definitive answer...and I'm pretty sure I'll be proven right (as I've argued from the beginning, no ineligible players and no vacating of wins).

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

The NCAA described the paper-class scam as providing "impermissible benefits to student-athletes that were not generally available to the student body

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23090988.html#storylink=cpy

 

[kybassfan]

So you're saying the NCAA didn't think it was fraud, or they didn't want to pursue this as academic fraud. Whereas in the SMU cases and Syracuse cases they insisted on calling it academic fraud. So, right there should tell you something about those cases versus UNC's case. In one case, the NCAA had sufficient evidence to feel compelled to call it academic fraud, in the other the NCAA conceded (to use your own word) it was not fraud. Great, so we both agree where it matters most (to athletics/NCAA), no academic fraud was committed.

Also, you do realize the big impermissible benefits were for advisers giving preference to athletes, signing them up for these courses before other regular students were able to register. NOT FOR THE COURSES THEMSELVES. So, this doesn't even sound like the NCAA conceded to UNC's assertion that no fraud took place, they didn't even mention the courses at all as being even substandard. Why on earth would they not go after these courses if they thought it was simply semantics?

How does it "really matter" with SACS? I'm talking about penalties specific to the athletic teams.

Finally, I think you're being incredibly loose with your interpretation of how the NOA is drafted. The COI is not going to go back and add new things to the list of allegations. And as such, the NCAA is not going to minimize the significance of their wording or lessen the severity of the allegations simply to please a university. I think it's pretty clear to most why in the NOA the NCAA went after impermissible benefits and it wasn't because UNC insisted they not call it fraud (especially when you see the two have no connection to each other -- once again THE CLASSES WERE NOT THE BENEFITS).

So, just so we're on the same page. The NCAA never called those classes fake. UNC never called those classes fake. The classes still count towards a degree for those who took them. Yet, somehow, the NCAA is going to use those classes to rule players ineligible.

If the classes weren't fake, then why did SACS put the entire freaking university on probation. Furthermore, do you realize if they'd required the classes to be expunged, the few non-athletes which were duped into taking the pseudo classes could lose their degree. The NCAA, being a benevolent despot can chose to act on the SACS data however they chose. We're all hoping they don't applaud such corruption as you do. It's frankly embarrassing to contemplate playing them again.

And yes, the classes were a portion of the benefits.

I'm assuming you were educated in the midst of that scum and lack the moral compass to see what a foul den of academic fraud and athletic corruption you are defending. Then again, maybe you don't care

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Perhaps. But at least we'll see how was right after the NCAA rules. In this argument there will be a definitive answer...and I'm pretty sure I'll be proven right (as I've argued from the beginning, no ineligible players and no vacating of wins).

You may get a slap on the wrist from the NCAA, but that won't prove you were right, it will simply highlight their arbitrary and incompetent policing of college sports. But you're still missing a big issue for you. It doesn't matter what the NCAA called anything in the NOA, nor are they bound to only pursue penalties on the allegations listed in the NOA. I still say if the NCAA doesn't come down hard on a university that cheated for 20+ years, the consequences for them could be their own death penalty. In some ways I hope they do nothing to UNCheat over this. I want to see the fallout.

 

[UKnCincy]

So you're saying the NCAA didn't think it was fraud, or they didn't want to pursue this as academic fraud. Whereas in the SMU cases and Syracuse cases they insisted on calling it academic fraud. So, right there should tell you something about those cases versus UNC's case. In one case, the NCAA had sufficient evidence to feel compelled to call it academic fraud, in the other the NCAA conceded (to use your own word) it was not fraud. Great, so we both agree where it matters most (to athletics/NCAA), no academic fraud was committed.

Also, you do realize the big impermissible benefits were for advisers giving preference to athletes, signing them up for these courses before other regular students were able to register. NOT FOR THE COURSES THEMSELVES. So, this doesn't even sound like the NCAA conceded to UNC's assertion that no fraud took place, they didn't even mention the courses at all as being even substandard. Why on earth would they not go after these courses if they thought it was simply semantics?

How does it "really matter" with SACS? I'm talking about penalties specific to the athletic teams.

Finally, I think you're being incredibly loose with your interpretation of how the NOA is drafted. The COI is not going to go back and add new things to the list of allegations. And as such, the NCAA is not going to minimize the significance of their wording or lessen the severity of the allegations simply to please a university. I think it's pretty clear to most why in the NOA the NCAA went after impermissible benefits and it wasn't because UNC insisted they not call it fraud (especially when you see the two have no connection to each other -- once again THE CLASSES WERE NOT THE BENEFITS).

So, just so we're on the same page. The NCAA never called those classes fake. UNC never called those classes fake. The classes still count towards a degree for those who took them. Yet, somehow, the NCAA is going to use those classes to rule players ineligible.

Finally, finally, why on earth would the NCAA not call it fraud if the evidence was strong? You said in general the evidence is usually strong enough to confirm fraud and so the NCAA doesn't bother with the wording and will call it impermissible benefits. However, the punishments are clearly different according to their own bylaws. Why on earth would they handicap themselves like this, as you're suggesting they routinely do? It makes no sense. No, I'm pretty sure that if the NCAA thinks fraud occurred and thinks they can show fraud occurred then they'll put it in the NOA as fraud. If they don't think it occurred or if they don't think they can prove it then they won't put it in the NOA. It just doesn't pass the common sense test otherwise.

In the words of Gene Marsh, former Chairman of the COI:

"The philosophy is let the schools decide first through their own disciplinary process if these set of facts are academic fraud or academic misconduct,” Marsh said. “And if they conclude that it’s academic fraud, boom, the NCAA will use that. But if they do not, the NCAA does not walk away, they will use extra benefits."
​

Fraud is missing from the NOA due to UNC stonewalling, not because the NCAA deemed it didn't occur. It's a function of the process used. And this in no way handicaps what the NCAA can do in this case. The Lack of Institutional Control puts almost all options on the table. Pushing the issue with "fraud" isn't needed and isn't worth the time and hassle.

 

[shun1]

You may get a slap on the wrist from the NCAA, but that won't prove you were right, it will dimly or ether arbitrary and incompetent policing of college sports. But you're still missing a big issue for you. It doesn't matter what the NCAA called anything in the NOA, nor are they bound to only pursue penalties on the allegations listed in the NOA. I still say if the NCAA doesn't come down hard on a university that cheated for 20+ years, the consequences for them could be their own death penalty. In some ways I hope they do nothing to UNCheat over this. I want to see the fallout.

Hi "BigBlueFanGA. SMILE.

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

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

Hi "BigBlueFanGA. SMILE.

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

You have issues.

 

[Xception]

I'm mildly surprised Bobby has been misidentified , who else would continually dance around an issue without committing to a definitive answer or position . Been here for years

As for Shun , doesn't know what to say due to a lack of intelligence . That's a UNC mod right there .

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

The NCAA described the paper-class scam as providing "impermissible benefits to student-athletes that were not generally available to the student body

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23090988.html#storylink=cpy

Wrong. The classes were NOT the impermissible benefits. Anyone can read the NOA if they like, it's there.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

If the classes weren't fake, then why did SACS put the entire freaking university on probation. Furthermore, do you realize if they'd required the classes to be expunged, the few non-athletes which were duped into taking the pseudo classes could lose their degree. The NCAA, being a benevolent despot can chose to act on the SACS data however they chose. We're all hoping they don't applaud such corruption as you do. It's frankly embarrassing to contemplate playing them again.

And yes, the classes were a portion of the benefits.

I'm assuming you were educated in the midst of that scum and lack the moral compass to see what a foul den of academic fraud and athletic corruption you are defending. Then again, maybe you don't care

Wrong, classes were not part of the benefits. Also, I don't care about SACS, never said I did. I'm not going to debate their actions with you, only what the NCAA has said and will do/does.

 

[jarms24]

Wrong. The classes were NOT the impermissible benefits. Anyone can read the NOA if they like, it's there.

What were the impermissible benefits then?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

You may get a slap on the wrist from the NCAA, but that won't prove you were right, it will simply highlight their arbitrary and incompetent policing of college sports. But you're still missing a big issue for you. It doesn't matter what the NCAA called anything in the NOA, nor are they bound to only pursue penalties on the allegations listed in the NOA. I still say if the NCAA doesn't come down hard on a university that cheated for 20+ years, the consequences for them could be their own death penalty. In some ways I hope they do nothing to UNCheat over this. I want to see the fallout.

You're right, they have to do all they can to punish UNC. Which is why some are foolish to think they'll let them off...unless they have to (ie., nothing to hit them with). However, you're wrong with your assumption of what I've been arguing this whole time. I've been arguing that none of the players were ineligible and that no games will be vacated as such, not what they might do to them in the future (post-season bans, scholarship reductions, etc.). Those penalties are subjective, the question of whether players were ineligible is based more on fact and less open to action simply because of fear of backlash.

No ineligible players and no vacated games.

 

[Poetax]

Uh, pretty sure that UNC did not call the courses fraudulent.

So, SMU and Syracuse both informed the NCAA they committed academic fraud, it wasn't the NCAA finding this out during their investigation? That is the only reason the NCAA doesn't allege they committed fraud and that is why they charged the academic advisers with using preferential treatment towards athletes when registering them for courses rather than academic fraud?

Finally, once again, UNC nor the NCAA called it fraud. The NOA doesn't call it fraud. Who THAT MATTERS to athletics have called this fraud?

I believe unc did call them fraudulent, but they used the term "the carolina way" to explain it. bobby, you back a classless and cheating university I feel for you.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

What were the impermissible benefits then?

Access to classes which the regular student body didn't have. They were allowed to sign up for classes before regular students.

 

[jarms24]

No ineligible players and no vacated games.

 

[jarms24]

Access to classes which the regular student body didn't have. They were allowed to sign up for classes before regular students.

Okay, so the classes were the impermissible benefit then. Serious question, if I asked you for the time, would you tell me how to build a clock? Just curious.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

In the words of Gene Marsh, former Chairman of the COI:

"The philosophy is let the schools decide first through their own disciplinary process if these set of facts are academic fraud or academic misconduct,” Marsh said. “And if they conclude that it’s academic fraud, boom, the NCAA will use that. But if they do not, the NCAA does not walk away, they will use extra benefits."
​

Fraud is missing from the NOA due to UNC stonewalling, not because the NCAA deemed it didn't occur. It's a function of the process used. And this in no way handicaps what the NCAA can do in this case. The Lack of Institutional Control puts almost all options on the table. Pushing the issue with "fraud" isn't needed and isn't worth the time and hassle.

So, you quote the guy being interviewed for an N&O article. Yeah, they've been objective.

I think I'll wait for the results.

 

[UK till Death]

How many hundreds of pages has Bobby typed on this board regarding his cheating program?

Literally. Hundreds of pages.

What kind of a loser must he be in RL?

It's mind-boggling.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Okay, so the classes were the impermissible benefit then. Serious question, if I asked you for the time, would you tell me how to build a clock? Just curious.

Uh, what? Did you read what I said?