North Carolina Scandal Etc

[jarms24]

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.

Hey, how many redactions has UNC requested from the N&O since this began? Hint, none.

Uh, what? Did you read what I said?

Uh, yes. I don't think that is correct though. Is that what the NOA says? If so, can you link it or copy/paste it? Besides, you're saying that giving student athletes first dibs on fraudulent classes is a worse infraction than the fraudulent classes themselves? Highly doubt giving them early access to them would constitute a level 1 infraction more so than the classes existing in the first place. Are you fvcking high?

 

[kybassfan]

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

That's rich. Show me links. Give me proof.

Bobbi perve gets a link and what happens? He gets whiney cause it's not from the exact document he wants. Why? Cause he hasn't read anything except the very few documents that don't absolutely explicitly state he is wrong. This is the sort of misleading BS that the institute of scumbags in NC tried when they inflicted fake classes and fraudelently used them to boost athlete eligibility. The same slimy tactics used when they through a women's basketball coach under the bus. Deflect, delay, deny. The three D's of slime bag U, aka the North Carolina Way.

I will make a prediction. If the NC trash skates by an incompetent NCAA, he will return and gloat with glee, having escaped the justice due the longest and worst cheating scandal in the history. No remorse. Just a cheating fan, product of a cheating program. And he's proud of it.

 

[jarms24]

So, let me get this straight.

Fraudulent classes weren't the impermissible benefit

Giving student athletes first dibs on the fraudulent classes was what pissed off the NCAA.

Sound logic, if you're a water head.

 

[UKnCincy]

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.

I quote a 9 year member of the COI, who was also chair of the COI for three of those years.

 

[UKnCincy]

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.

That is incorrect regarding ineligible players. The minute the players received the extra benefit, they become ineligible per 16.01.1.

"A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."​

 

[kybassfan]

That is incorrect regarding ineligible players. The minute the players received the extra benefit, they become ineligible per 16.01.1.

"A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."​

Ladies and gentlemen, there shall be a thirty minute delay for repairs. UKnCincy has shattered the backboard.

Right on Bobbi Perv boy's head.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Hey, how many redactions has UNC requested from the N&O since this began? Hint, none.


Uh, yes. I don't think that is correct though. Is that what the NOA says? If so, can you link it or copy/paste it? Besides, you're saying that giving student athletes first dibs on fraudulent classes is a worse infraction than the fraudulent classes themselves? Highly doubt giving them early access to them would constitute a level 1 infraction more so than the classes existing in the first place. Are you fvcking high?

A lot.

You can find the NOA online.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

That's rich. Show me links. Give me proof.

Bobbi perve gets a link and what happens? He gets whiney cause it's not from the exact document he wants. Why? Cause he hasn't read anything except the very few documents that don't absolutely explicitly state he is wrong. This is the sort of misleading BS that the institute of scumbags in NC tried when they inflicted fake classes and fraudelently used them to boost athlete eligibility. The same slimy tactics used when they through a women's basketball coach under the bus. Deflect, delay, deny. The three D's of slime bag U, aka the North Carolina Way.

I will make a prediction. If the NC trash skates by an incompetent NCAA, he will return and gloat with glee, having escaped the justice due the longest and worst cheating scandal in the history. No remorse. Just a cheating fan, product of a cheating program. And he's proud of it.

Proof = NOA. Find it online.

 

[kybassfan]

Proof = NOA. Find it online.

Read that long time ago. No it does not. Find it on line your own lazy cheating self. I am not writing your papers for you, regardless of what you may be used to.

 

[UKNCAA1]

Proof = NOA. Find it online.

Getting terse. Busy washing the foot fungus off your hands?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

That is incorrect regarding ineligible players. The minute the players received the extra benefit, they become ineligible per 16.01.1.

"A student-athlete shall not receive any extra benefit. Receipt by a student-athlete of an award, benefit or expense allowance not authorized by NCAA legislation renders the student-athlete ineligible for athletics competition in the sport for which the improper award, benefit or expense was received. If the student-athlete receives an extra benefit not authorized by NCAA legislation, the individual is ineligible in all sports."​

I'm glad you brought this up. Unfortunately you forgot to quote the most important part:

For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility.

By the way, did they assign a monetary value to those benefits? Also, did they allege any players were ineligible? Have you ever read and NOA that didn't allege a player(s) ineligible, only for them to be deemed ineligible later on? If so, please let us know.

 

[kybassfan]

I'm glad you brought this up. Unfortunately you forgot to quote the most important part:

For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility.

By the way, did they assign a monetary value to those benefits? Also, did they allege any players were ineligible? Have you ever read and NOA that didn't allege a player(s) ineligible, only for them to be deemed ineligible later on? If so, please let us know.

Well, lack of institutional control is another animal all together. For the affected sport, the entire team is ineligible. They don't have to allege specific players to be ineligible. Plus, the specific allegation doesn't have to be made if the violation is clear, which it is. Not to mention pre-written term papers are not only cheating, but have monetary value. I'm sure you can google it.

Bottom line is the NCAA has enough on the cheats of North Carolina they can do anything the like.

But here you set, trying to defend the most corrupt program in history.

 

[jarms24]

A lot.

You can find the NOA online.

Bullshit, I follow Andrew Carter on twitter and he tweeted that UNC had not once asked for a redaction. Granted, this has been >6 months ago, but this scandal has been going on for >5 years, so I now know you're full of shit.

Copy/paste the text where it says the impermissible benefits are for granting student-athletes early access to enroll in the classes. I think you're just making stuff up at this point, because you've been exposed.

 

[UKnCincy]

I'm glad you brought this up. Unfortunately you forgot to quote the most important part:

For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete’s eligibility.

By the way, did they assign a monetary value to those benefits? Also, did they allege any players were ineligible? Have you ever read and NOA that didn't allege a player(s) ineligible, only for them to be deemed ineligible later on? If so, please let us know.

16.01.1.1 which you are quoting, refers to "impermissible benefits" not "impermissible extra benefits." There is a significant difference between the two in the NCAA by-laws. When the term "extra" is added, the restitution clause does not apply. That's why part of 16.01.1 talks about an athlete being ineligible in just their sport and part talks about being ineligible in all sports. One's an impermissible benefit and one's an impermissible benefit that is also "extra."

Regarding the NOA alleging ineligibility, that is not required. In fact, the SMU president was recently very upset over the fact that they had to vacate wins. His reason was that ineligibility was never mentioned in the NOA or during the investigation. It didn't come up until day two of the hearing and he felt SMU had inadequate time to prepare. The problem is, SMU wasn't prepared because they made an assumption they shouldn't have. The same assumption you're making as well. A simple question to the NCAA would've let them know that this was a possibility despite not being mentioned in the NOA.

 

[jarms24]

Bob's getting jail sexed by Cincy.

 

[UKNCAA1]

16.01.1.1 which you are quoting, refers to "impermissible benefits" not "impermissible extra benefits." There is a significant difference between the two in the NCAA by-laws. When the term "extra" is added, the restitution clause does not apply. That's why part of 16.01.1 talks about an athlete being ineligible in just their sport and part talks about being ineligible in all sports. One's an impermissible benefit and one's an impermissible benefit that is also "extra."

Regarding the NOA alleging ineligibility, that is not required. In fact, the SMU president was recently very upset over the fact that they had to vacate wins. His reason was that ineligibility was never mentioned in the NOA or during the investigation. It didn't come up until day two of the hearing and he felt SMU had inadequate time to prepare. The problem is, SMU wasn't prepared because they made an assumption they shouldn't have. The same assumption you're making as well. A simple question to the NCAA would've let them know that this was a possibility despite not being mentioned in the NOA.

So in addition to having a foot fetish, Bobbi appears to enjoy getting spanked...

 

[anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y]

Why did Deborah Crowder and Julius Nyiang'oro refuse to cooperate with the NCAA investigation resulting in 2 of the 5 level 1 infractions? If all these courses were above board and no basketball players were steered to said courses, then cooperating with the investigation shouldn't have been a problem. Afterall, these 2 were the main culprits according to UNC fans. You would think they would want to set the record straight and clear their names.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Bullshit, I follow Andrew Carter on twitter and he tweeted that UNC had not once asked for a redaction. Granted, this has been >6 months ago, but this scandal has been going on for >5 years, so I now know you're full of shit.

Copy/paste the text where it says the impermissible benefits are for granting student-athletes early access to enroll in the classes. I think you're just making stuff up at this point, because you've been exposed.

Well then, he's not telling the truth. Can you link me this text?

Here #1:

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf

 

[jarms24]

Well then, he's not telling the truth. Can you link me this text?

Here #1:

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03kg.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/NCAA-NOA.pdf

Copy/Paste it. Don't give me a link to a 59 page document and let me hunt for it. It wasn't on page 1 either, if that's what you were implying.

No, I'm not going to Carter's twitter and digging through 6 months worth of tweets just to find where he tweeted that info. I will ask him though, and if he responds, I will post the tweets here for you.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

16.01.1.1 which you are quoting, refers to "impermissible benefits" not "impermissible extra benefits." There is a significant difference between the two in the NCAA by-laws. When the term "extra" is added, the restitution clause does not apply. That's why part of 16.01.1 talks about an athlete being ineligible in just their sport and part talks about being ineligible in all sports. One's an impermissible benefit and one's an impermissible benefit that is also "extra."

Regarding the NOA alleging ineligibility, that is not required. In fact, the SMU president was recently very upset over the fact that they had to vacate wins. His reason was that ineligibility was never mentioned in the NOA or during the investigation. It didn't come up until day two of the hearing and he felt SMU had inadequate time to prepare. The problem is, SMU wasn't prepared because they made an assumption they shouldn't have. The same assumption you're making as well. A simple question to the NCAA would've let them know that this was a possibility despite not being mentioned in the NOA.

Good thing for me the NOA doesn't say impermissible extra benefits, it only says impermissible benefits. So, I guess 16.01.1.1 would follow in this case...much like all of the articles discussing this has mentioned.

Also, please provide a link to where the SMU president said the NOA didn't mention any ineligible players. I will read it later and respond tomorrow. Thanks in advance.

Edit: Can you define an extra benefit and a benefit? Would taking money not be an impermissible extra benefit, or would it only be an impermissible benefit? If so, how are players allowed to pay back restitution and play?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Copy/Paste it. Don't give me a link to a 59 page document and let me hunt for it. It wasn't on page 1 either, if that's what you were implying.

No, I'm not going to Carter's twitter and digging through 6 months worth of tweets just to find where he tweeted that info. I will ask him though, and if he responds, I will post the tweets here for you.

It's on page 5, the very first allegation.

Thanks.

 

[jarms24]

Good thing for me the NOA doesn't say impermissible extra benefits, it only says impermissible benefits. So, I guess 16.01.1.1 would follow in this case...much like all of the articles discussing this has mentioned.

False, it does say impermissible extra benefits on page 5 of the link you shared. It's in the first allegation. See below.

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to studentathletes that were not generally available to the student body. The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades.

 

[UKnCincy]

Good thing for me the NOA doesn't say impermissible extra benefits, it only says impermissible benefits. So, I guess 16.01.1.1 would follow in this case...much like all of the articles discussing this has mentioned.

Also, please provide a link to where the SMU president said the NOA didn't mention any ineligible players. I will read it later and respond tomorrow. Thanks in advance.

You might want to re-read the NOA, specifically page one:

"The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes..."
​

Regarding SMU, it's from the USA Today article where the SMU President spoke about why he didn't fire Larry Brown and why he was considering appealing the ruling. The article states:

"[SMU is considering appealing] The vacating of men's basketball wins from the 2013-14 season, which he called 'just a shock to us.' 'The NCAA was here for 18 months,' Turner said, 'and they never, ever brought up that Keith might have been ineligible during that period of time. Never. We had two days of hearings. That wasn't brought up until the morning of the second day. So we had no time to prepare for it. We knew nothing about it, and so that almost has to be appealed because he was given immunity for his testimony and his understanding and ours too is that it went forward and backward (in time) and they're saying it was only forward. So there are a lot of things about that that are just inexplicable right now. Let's just say that.'"​

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...d-turner-ncaa-sanctions-larry-brown/73055362/

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

False, it does say impermissible extra benefits on page 5 of the link you shared. It's in the first allegation. See below.

Athletics academic counselors in the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes (ASPSA) leveraged their relationships with faculty and staff members in the African and Afro-American Studies (AFRI/AFAM) department to obtain and/or provide special arrangements to studentathletes that were not generally available to the student body. The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades.

Well, you're right. I was just reading the actual allegation itself:

It is alleged that beginning in the 2002 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible benefits to studentathletes that were not generally available to the student body

So, it appears to say both. I guess we'll have to wait to hear what the difference between an impermissible extra benefit and an impermissible benefit and where it says restitution doesn't apply in the former.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

You might want to re-read the NOA, specifically page one:

"The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes..."
​

Regarding SMU, it's from the USA Today article where the SMU President spoke about why he didn't fire Larry Brown and why he was considering appealing the ruling. The article states:

"[SMU is considering appealing] The vacating of men's basketball wins from the 2013-14 season, which he called 'just a shock to us.' 'The NCAA was here for 18 months,' Turner said, 'and they never, ever brought up that Keith might have been ineligible during that period of time. Never. We had two days of hearings. That wasn't brought up until the morning of the second day. So we had no time to prepare for it. We knew nothing about it, and so that almost has to be appealed because he was given immunity for his testimony and his understanding and ours too is that it went forward and backward (in time) and they're saying it was only forward. So there are a lot of things about that that are just inexplicable right now. Let's just say that.'"​

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...d-turner-ncaa-sanctions-larry-brown/73055362/

Yeah, jarm24 pointed that out. Could you explain, or tell me where, to read about the difference between the two types of impermissible benefits?

Edit: Oh, thanks for linking the article. I will have to read it later, as well as respond later.

Edit2: Well, that was disappointing. I was hoping to see the NOA. I'm also curious why he didn't go along with the appeals if what he was saying is completely accurate. Do you have a link to their NOA?

 

[jarms24]

Well, you're right

I know, and you were wrong. You've been wrong throughout this entire thread. Look for that theme to continue.

 

[UKnCincy]

Yeah, jarm24 pointed that out. Could you explain, or tell me where, to read about the difference between the two types of impermissible benefits?

Section 16 of the bylaws covers this. There are specified benefits that the NCAA has called out as permissible, provided they adhere to certain guidelines. For example, team meals, complimentary tickets, or lodging for family members. Anything in excess of NCAA limits becomes impermissible.

Any benefit outside of those that are authorized above is considered an extra benefit, with far more serious implications for an athlete's eligibility.

 

[jarms24]

It's on page 5, the very first allegation.

Thanks.

It also doesn't say that the impermissible extra benefits were because the classes were made available to student athletes first. It does, however, mention that the arrangements were made by members of ASPSA, and that academic counselors were able to request certain grades, BUT not one word about the impermissible benefits being alleged because the student athletes were given first dibs, therefore, it's safe to assume that the fraudulent classes in AFRI/AFAM were impermissible benefits since the 1st allegation clearly states that the AFRI/AFAM anomalous courses were designated as lecture style but were taught as independent study courses with little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades.

Yep, definitely sounds like the classes were part of the impermissible extra benefits, which is what we've been saying. Thanks for proving us right again, Bob. You're clutch.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Section 16 of the bylaws covers this. There are specified benefits that the NCAA has called out as permissible, provided they adhere to certain guidelines. For example, team meals, complimentary tickets, or lodging for family members. Anything in excess of NCAA limits becomes impermissible.

Any benefit outside of those that are authorized above is considered an extra benefit, with far more serious implications for an athlete's eligibility.

Where would money given to a player fall?

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

It also doesn't say that the impermissible extra benefits were because the classes were made available to student athletes first. It does, however, mention that the arrangements were made by members of ASPSA, and that academic counselors were able to request certain grades, BUT not one word about the impermissible benefits being alleged because the student athletes were given first dibs, therefore, it's safe to assume that the fraudulent classes in AFRI/AFAM were impermissible benefits since the 1st allegation clearly states that the AFRI/AFAM anomalous courses were designated as lecture style but were taught as independent study courses with little, if any, attendance requirements, minimal to no faculty interaction, lax paper writing standards and artificially high final grades.

Yep, definitely sounds like the classes were part of the impermissible extra benefits, which is what we've been saying. Thanks for proving us right again, Bob. You're clutch.

Uh, yeah it does. Here's the list mentioned in the NOA (relevant part is bolded)

The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades.

Also, the courses were available to all students, so that kind of puts another nail in the proverbial coffin for your theory.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Thanks for the chatting guys, but I really do have to run now. Hopefully, I can get my questions answered.

 

[catben]

Booby G needs to pay for all of the legal advise he has received from this thread alone!! May I suggest a plea bargain for your UNC AD and President.

 

[UKnCincy]

Where would money given to a player fall?

Depends on who's giving it and for what purpose. If it's expense money given by the school to cover a meal during a vacation period, then that is an impermissible benefit if it is too much. If it's a recruiting inducement given by a coach or a booster, then it's an extra benefit.

 

[jarms24]

Uh, yeah it does. Here's the list mentioned in the NOA (relevant part is bolded)

The special arrangements athletics academic counselors provided to student-athletes constituted impermissible extra benefits and included, but were not limited to, requesting certain course offerings within the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, contacting individuals within the AFRI/AFAM department to register student-athletes in courses, obtaining assignments for classes taught in the AFRI/AFAM department on behalf of student-athletes, suggesting assignments to the AFRI/AFAM department for student-athletes to complete, turning in papers on behalf of student-athletes and recommending grades.

Also, the courses were available to all students, so that kind of puts another nail in the proverbial coffin for your theory.

No, you are clearly misinterpreting what is written. That isn't the same thing as saying the impermissible benefit is because they had first access. It's saying they (ASPSA) didn't arrange it for regular students. Later down, it is saying that the classes, themselves, are an impermissible benefit. I already pasted that for you.

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

No, you are clearly misinterpreting what is written. That isn't the same thing as saying the impermissible benefit is because they had first access. It's saying they (ASPSA) didn't arrange it for regular students. Later down, it is saying that the classes, themselves, are an impermissible benefit. I already pasted that for you.

Ok, I'll bite. Paste it again. I want to see where it says the classes were impermissible benefits (extra or not).

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Depends on who's giving it and for what purpose. If it's expense money given by the school to cover a meal during a vacation period, then that is an impermissible benefit if it is too much. If it's a recruiting inducement given by a coach or a booster, then it's an extra benefit.

Ah, ok. So how then are players who take money from agents or boosters or etc. allowed to pay-back a fee and still play if it's not too much that they receive?

Also, I'm pretty sure 16.01.1.1 follows 16.01.1, regardless of the type of impermissible benefit (award, extra benefit, etc.).

 

[BobbyG_tickle_swerv]

Yep, now I'm positive 16.01.1.1 follows 16.01.1; that is, the "restitution clause" does apply to impermissible extra benefits. Here's a link to a benefits-for-dummies provided by UTexas:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tex/genrel/auto_pdf/compliance-extra-benefits.pdf

In it, you'll see the following:

Q. Does it matter how much the benefit is worth?
A. Yes and No. When determining whether something is an extra benefit or not, the value of the benefit does not matter, whether the benefit is worth $5 or $5000. The questions that matter when determining whether or not something is impermissible are things like who provided the benefit, their relationship to the student-athlete, why they provided it and who received the benefit (everyone or just student-athletes). Once it is determined whether the benefit is impermissible, then the value of the benefit is relevant to determining what penalty is assessed. Obviously, the larger the benefit received, the more severe the penalty may be.

Q. What if a student-athlete did accept an extra benefit? What would happen?
A. That will depend largely on the value of the benefit he received. In almost all cases, the student-athlete will be required to repay the value of the impermissible benefit to a charity of their choice. Depending on the value of the benefit, the NCAA may also require a student-athlete to sit out some number of games or some percent of the season.

So, it appears that UT compliance agree with what I said earlier. Thanks for the info though, it really did help me understand the different types of "benefits". However, those articles about the eligibility of the players and the lack of monetary value assigned to the benefits seem to be back in play.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Yep, now I'm positive 16.01.1.1 follows 16.01.1; that is, the "restitution clause" does apply to impermissible extra benefits. Here's a link to a benefits-for-dummies provided by UTexas:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tex/genrel/auto_pdf/compliance-extra-benefits.pdf

In it, you'll see the following:

Q. Does it matter how much the benefit is worth?
A. Yes and No. When determining whether something is an extra benefit or not, the value of the benefit does not matter, whether the benefit is worth $5 or $5000. The questions that matter when determining whether or not something is impermissible are things like who provided the benefit, their relationship to the student-athlete, why they provided it and who received the benefit (everyone or just student-athletes). Once it is determined whether the benefit is impermissible, then the value of the benefit is relevant to determining what penalty is assessed. Obviously, the larger the benefit received, the more severe the penalty may be.

Q. What if a student-athlete did accept an extra benefit? What would happen?
A. That will depend largely on the value of the benefit he received. In almost all cases, the student-athlete will be required to repay the value of the impermissible benefit to a charity of their choice. Depending on the value of the benefit, the NCAA may also require a student-athlete to sit out some number of games or some percent of the season.

So, it appears that UT compliance agree with what I said earlier. Thanks for the info though, it really did help me understand the different types of "benefits". However, those articles about the eligibility of the players and the lack of monetary value assigned to the benefits seem to be back in play.

It sounds like your argument is that credits toward a degree from UNC is worth nothing. After seeing what classes athletes were given grades for, the COI might be inclined to agree with you.

 

[420grover]

I think he keeps missing that part that says "but not limited to". Also, SACS does have a little bit of influence with athletics. No accreditation = no membership in the NCAA.

 

[UKnCincy]

Yep, now I'm positive 16.01.1.1 follows 16.01.1; that is, the "restitution clause" does apply to impermissible extra benefits. Here's a link to a benefits-for-dummies provided by UTexas:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/tex/genrel/auto_pdf/compliance-extra-benefits.pdf

In it, you'll see the following:

Q. Does it matter how much the benefit is worth?
A. Yes and No. When determining whether something is an extra benefit or not, the value of the benefit does not matter, whether the benefit is worth $5 or $5000. The questions that matter when determining whether or not something is impermissible are things like who provided the benefit, their relationship to the student-athlete, why they provided it and who received the benefit (everyone or just student-athletes). Once it is determined whether the benefit is impermissible, then the value of the benefit is relevant to determining what penalty is assessed. Obviously, the larger the benefit received, the more severe the penalty may be.

Q. What if a student-athlete did accept an extra benefit? What would happen?
A. That will depend largely on the value of the benefit he received. In almost all cases, the student-athlete will be required to repay the value of the impermissible benefit to a charity of their choice. Depending on the value of the benefit, the NCAA may also require a student-athlete to sit out some number of games or some percent of the season.

So, it appears that UT compliance agree with what I said earlier. Thanks for the info though, it really did help me understand the different types of "benefits". However, those articles about the eligibility of the players and the lack of monetary value assigned to the benefits seem to be back in play.

No, it doesn't appear that UT compliance agrees with you because they don't. When 16.01.1.1 applies, the athlete/school does not need to petition the NCAA for reinstatement. The athlete simply pays the charity, the school reports everything that happened to the NCAA, and everyone moves on. For example, if a school gave a student $20 too much for a meal, the student pays it back and the school reports it. Nothing more is needed.

In instances beyond that, the athlete is required to sit out while the school gathers all of the facts. The school then sends the facts to the NCAA and petitions for reinstatement. The NCAA will evaluate the facts and assess a penalty based on who paid the benefit and how much it was. You'll notice that 16.01.1.1 never mentions sitting out games, yet the UT pdf you linked does. That's because they are two different processes entirely.

This only indicates that in both instances, the NCAA may require the athlete to repay something to a charity.