Couldn't find anything specific? Well you are just lying now, because you know better. Guess that is to be expected from a supporter of such a sleezy institution which is devoid of ethics. I guess scumbag see, scumbag do.
North Carolina Scandal Etc
- Thread starter Catswin9
- Start date
Couldn't find anything specific? Well you are just lying now, because you know better. Guess that is to be expected from a supporter of such a sleezy institution which is devoid of ethics. I guess scumbag see, scumbag do.
A few Duke fans are starting to turn on Bilas over his relentless shilling for UNCheat. I read the thread on it at their rivals board, and they show a few tweets from this guy named Bradley Bethel who praises Bilas for his comments about this issue. Bethel actually quit his job to make a documentary about how the media is sensationalizing and lying about this scandal. Wow.
A
anon_9qtxg60vqzy0y
Guest
Here's why Roy/MBB weren't named. The 2 biggest fish in this entire scandal REFUSED TO COOPERATE with NCAA investigators:
"Deborah Crowder and former chair of the African and Afro-American Studies department Julius Nyang'oro were specifically mentioned in the NOA. Their "violations of ethical conduct" consisted of three of the five specific allegations"
Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23090988.html#storylink=cpy
Last edited by a moderator:
A month ago, he was still trying to raise money for the "documentary."
"We still have more funds to raise to achieve the budget that will allow us to produce the film at the highest quality and market and distribute it to a wide audience. A film’s budget includes video equipment, editing technologies, legal fees, insurance, crew salaries, marketing expenses, and more. We are grateful for the many contributions that are helping to cover these costs."
If Bethel follows through with this so called "documentary", he will become the equivalent of Bagdad Bob.
If he is actually Bobby G, he must HATE the fact that this board has torn down every premise he has used to raise money for this ridiculous project. Anyone that would contribute to this propaganda has to be considered brainwashed by baby blue.
If he is actually Bobby G, he must HATE the fact that this board has torn down every premise he has used to raise money for this ridiculous project. Anyone that would contribute to this propaganda has to be considered brainwashed by baby blue.
Were none of the 10 athletes identified in the NOA as receiving excess credits for independent studies men's basketball players? Were any mbb players enrolled in the lecture classes that never met, had no instruction and artificially high final grades? Were there any emails in the FI's between Walden and Crowder asking for preferential treatment for Roy's boys?
Love Bilas, but I do not agree with his decision to play the "semantics" game when talking about Roy not being named directly.
If Bethel follows through with this so called "documentary", he will become the equivalent of Bagdad Bob.
If he is actually Bobby G, he must HATE the fact that this board has torn down every premise he has used to raise money for this ridiculous project. Anyone that would contribute to this propaganda has to be considered brainwashed by baby blue.
Bobby still thinks that Clark Kent and Superman are two different people!
![[laughing]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/laugh.r191677.gif "Laughing [laughing]")
Well lets see a player on Ole Roy's team makes all A's and even the deans list, but never went to class, why ? because there wasn't a class to go to lol Yep I see "The Carolina Way" much clearer now . Why mess with those silly classes anyway dag gum it !
Uh, it's not semantics. It is facts. Here, let Bilas tell you himself:
Jay Bilas @JayBilas 11h11 hours ago
@DKBlev No, it's not semantics. It's called evidence. There was not evidence nor charges of Williams involved in any wrongdoing.
![[winking]](http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/img/emoticons/classic/wink.r191677.gif "Winking [winking]")
I think BobbyG should get access to the transcripts, so we can end all this back and forth. After all, it is proof that the sham classes existed and the 'bulk' of the basketball team took said classes.
Let's interview all those players to get the truth on what happened.
The real question is will the NCAA expose this fraud for what it is and tell UNC the cheating glory days are over?
Let's interview all those players to get the truth on what happened.
The real question is will the NCAA expose this fraud for what it is and tell UNC the cheating glory days are over?
UNC's athletic program and fan base alike continue to have an elitist attitude and feel their program is untouchable. The years of cheating do seem to date all the way back to Dean Smith and many years of winning through cheating, unethical practices and corruption have been the building blocks for that program. Men's basketball deserves a much more severe punishment than what Syracuse got but even if they do manage to sweep it under the rug and avoid punishment, that program is on a rapid decline. Their 2016 recruiting struggles are not just the result of the ncaa cloud hanging over the program, but player development and culture issues as well. The arrogance at UNC is truly like nowhere else and their decline will be fun to watch
I don't believe one thing will happen to the UNCheats this year. I think the gutless NCAA will let it drag on through the end of basketball season, and by that time people will have mostly forgotten about it. Then they may tell Ole Roy don't let this happen again because we are watching you now Mr !!!
[QUOTyou'vebbyG_tickle_swerv, post: 2507024, member: 12920"]I'm not making any predictions on penalties, only that they didn't play any ineligible players. We all know the NCAA can do what they want. I'm just glad you finally see that Roy/MBB were not named (in fact, no teams were named in the allegations), and so Jay Bilas is not being a homer, he's stating facts.
Isn't it odd that so many are complaining that the NCAA never punishes UNC or Duke, yet the chances are high that they will impose some form of penalties on them even though they couldn't find anything specific through their investigations?[/QUOTE]
so youve seen the unredacted noa?
Isn't it odd that so many are complaining that the NCAA never punishes UNC or Duke, yet the chances are high that they will impose some form of penalties on them even though they couldn't find anything specific through their investigations?[/QUOTE]
so youve seen the unredacted noa?
Here is your daily dose of comedy folks!! A *UNC fan talking about John Calipari recruiting and the Kentucky Program, the irony is palpable!!
"This is the combination of two things. First, Kentucky fans have the motto "just win, baby". They have nothing else, nothing, to offer anybody anywhere. The only thing you can say about UK is that they are #1 in men's division I wins. Calipari knows this. And he knows that UK fans don't care how, just keep them #1 in all-time wins. Calipari can kick a puppy every day and punch a kitten every night, and they would excuse him provided he kept them #1 in wins. So Calipari has an easy sell: "Come to Kentucky, take the easiest of easy courses. Nobody will care. We are in the SEC, the NCAA won't care about our academics. I will get you in the NBA. I will get you exposure so that scouts will like you. I will get you over that 1 season hump."
The NBA can hurt Calipari by requiring a 2 year rule, and make him irrelevant by putting in a baseball rule -- straight out of high school or 3 (or even 2) years."
"This is the combination of two things. First, Kentucky fans have the motto "just win, baby". They have nothing else, nothing, to offer anybody anywhere. The only thing you can say about UK is that they are #1 in men's division I wins. Calipari knows this. And he knows that UK fans don't care how, just keep them #1 in all-time wins. Calipari can kick a puppy every day and punch a kitten every night, and they would excuse him provided he kept them #1 in wins. So Calipari has an easy sell: "Come to Kentucky, take the easiest of easy courses. Nobody will care. We are in the SEC, the NCAA won't care about our academics. I will get you in the NBA. I will get you exposure so that scouts will like you. I will get you over that 1 season hump."
The NBA can hurt Calipari by requiring a 2 year rule, and make him irrelevant by putting in a baseball rule -- straight out of high school or 3 (or even 2) years."
Amazing isn't it?
The greatest cheating scandal of all time.
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
Again, if they received extra benefits, they were ineligible. It is not required to specify ineligiblity in the NOA; its implicit. The legislation, LRIC and AMA are crystal clear on this.
Since you seem to be struggling to grasp this, read page 48.
"There the committee confirmed that the restitution provisions provided in Bylaw 16 do not apply to an extra benefit violation in which a student-athlete receives an impermissible academic arrangement or assistance from an institutional staff member.
...determined that if an extra benefit violation were to occur, the institution may not return the student-athlete to competition without first going through the Student-Athlete Reinstatement process."
https://www.ncaa.org/sites/default/...eleconference Agenda and Supplements_R....pdf...determined that if an extra benefit violation were to occur, the institution may not return the student-athlete to competition without first going through the Student-Athlete Reinstatement process."
I understand everything you've said, and thanks for explaining it as much as it took. However, obviously it's not that clear-cut, for if so no one would be questioning if banners are coming down or not. Every article would say that UNC is losing the 05 banner and the 09 banner. But this is not the case. Hence, something is missing. Either your interpretation of the bylaws (the punishment tree associated to IEB vs IB) is off or no players were alleged to have been given IEB. You're the expert on NCAA bylaws, so I'll let you figure that out. I'm sticking with what I've said since the beginning, the classes count, the players were eligible. I guess we'll just have to wait a few more months to see.
Edit: Oh yeah, I meant to ask. What is the date on the manual you're using? What about the link? Are you sure you're using the correct version and not a newer version (were bylaws revised/added after the investigation?)?
A finding of ineligibility and the assessment of a penalty (e.g., vacating of victories) are two separate steps. Just because a player is ineligible, does not mean that victories are always vacated. The COI has leeway with respect to penalties.
However, if the COI upholds the extra benefits allegation, then UNC used ineligible players. Regardless of whether or not the COI also vacates wins. There can be no debate on this fact.
The reason so many are uncertain is due to one of two things. They're aren't familiar enough with the process to know. Or, because they don't know which players the NCAA believes received them. It's not because of ambiguity around the extra benefits legislation.
Ok. Well then, I guess we'll just have to see. Once the COI rules and their ruling becomes public we'll know if they played any ineligible players and we'll also know if they vacated any wins. I'm saying the answer will be no to both.
Thanks again for explaining things. However, I still would like to know the effective date of the bylaws/addenda you're using. Things change all the time and I don't want to read something that is not valid for this investigation's time-frame.
UKnCincy,
That memorandum is really interesting. In particular, the discussion of the Harrick case while at UGA. In that case, according to the paragraph top p48, the only way the NCAA was able to show an extra benefit was given out was because the lecturer required (after the start of the classes) students to attend practice and a game. Thus, the only students in the class who could meet these requirements were the athletes. This, according to the NCAA, was an IEB. Any chance UNC could use that all students were given the same treatment in the irregular courses to fight the IEB supplied by academic support staff allegation?
That memorandum is really interesting. In particular, the discussion of the Harrick case while at UGA. In that case, according to the paragraph top p48, the only way the NCAA was able to show an extra benefit was given out was because the lecturer required (after the start of the classes) students to attend practice and a game. Thus, the only students in the class who could meet these requirements were the athletes. This, according to the NCAA, was an IEB. Any chance UNC could use that all students were given the same treatment in the irregular courses to fight the IEB supplied by academic support staff allegation?
If you're asking which by-laws I cite when discussing UNC, it's the 2014-15 bylaws. Those are the bylaws governing the allegations. Penalties will use the old regime.
As far as addenda, I've not used any addenda, nor is there such a thing. If there is a change to the bylaws, they will be revised. The quote from above is in response to an AMA interpretation request as part of the Syracuse investigation. They didn't like the interpretation and appealed. The extra benefit legislation, with respect to eligibility has not changed the past several years and the AMA/LRIC interpretation applies to the 2014-15 bylaws as well.
It's equally important to note that John Swofford joined in that appeal. There's a reason for that.
No, because the specifics that the NCAA has alleged are things that were not available to the general student body. For example, you'd be hard pressed to demonstrate that a non-athlete would be able to suggest assignments for a course.
Good point Brad, glad you brought that up.
If other students are provided the same opportunity the accusations may be unfounded, the Harrick case proved if it was athletes only you were screwed.
Non-athletes did attend these classes, so why did the NCAA make this comment in the very first sentence of the Allegation section?
"It is alleged that beginning in the 2002 fall semester and continuing through the 2011 summer semester, the institution provided impermissible benefits to student athletes that were not generally available to the student body."
Is it because UNC totally understood that in order to cover this up non-athlete students had to attend?
Is there any evidence that UNC proactively recruited non-athlete students in order to use this defense in the future if necessary?
Of course there is evidence to this premeditated cheating scandal:
"FI164: March 28, 2006 – Email from Crowder to Walden. This includes, but is not limited to, Crowder mentioning she was comfortable adding another student-athlete to a course because she had added other students. (Item4_WaldenFromCrowder_032806_NorthCarolina_00231)"
This is a huge slap in the face to the NCAA, and apparently they didn't like it.
Sorry Brad, you guys may not get the punishment you deserve but this was blatant.
Dean Smith is no angel, his halo is bent and tarnished, as is every athletic department member associated with this scandal, these people have shamed the athletic and educational reputation of UNC.
I'll defer to UKinCincy for specifics on the actual rules.
One thing to keep in mind about this whole thing, and a reason why I don't think it's an option for the NCAA to let UNC MBB to skate, is that the NCAA is really basing their case only on a subset of the potential infractions.
They are largely relying on the Wainstein report, which although it was much more thorough than previous investigations and provided sufficient information to lead to a Lack of Institutional Control charge, Wainstein's report by itself was limited in scope (i.e. mainly AFAM studies) and not IMO truly independent as UNC was footing the bill.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of other issues which have been revealed which could easily lead to sanctions against the school and their athletic programs, but frankly haven't even been addressed or looked at by the NCAA. Part of the problem is that the NCAA has allowed UNC to do their own investigations, which predictably were ineffectual and half-hearted attempts to determine not only the origin but the breadth of the scandal. In fact I would argue that the NCAA has acted more as a co-conspirator in covering up the scandal than it has in terms of uncovering anything. (Have they ever adequately explained what former UNC football player and then NCAA-staffer Marcus Wilson was doing on campus ahead of the news of an impending probe ?)
As far as other potential areas of investigation I'm talking about things like Wheels for Heels, the Dental Foundation and Tami Hansbrough, the Learning Disability Center and its ties to Fats, other classes outside AFAM like the Naval Studies class, Jan Boxil's Women's studies classes among many other things. And that's just with regards to the NCAA. What about a federal probe into Pell Grant fraud etc.?
If the NCAA fails to bring the hammer, then as far as I'm concerned it just opens the next stage in this long drawn-out saga of why has the NCAA self-limited their scope? Why have they essentially farmed-out their investigation to the very people who are most intent on covering up the wrong-doing? Why have they proven to be so ineffective and why shouldn't the NCAA itself be investigated as a co-conspirator at this point?
I don't think even the NCAA is that dumb and willing to risk destroying themselves over a group of self-serving and non-repenting a-holes like the group that runs UNC-Chapel Hill.
They are largely relying on the Wainstein report, which although it was much more thorough than previous investigations and provided sufficient information to lead to a Lack of Institutional Control charge, Wainstein's report by itself was limited in scope (i.e. mainly AFAM studies) and not IMO truly independent as UNC was footing the bill.
The fact of the matter is that there are a lot of other issues which have been revealed which could easily lead to sanctions against the school and their athletic programs, but frankly haven't even been addressed or looked at by the NCAA. Part of the problem is that the NCAA has allowed UNC to do their own investigations, which predictably were ineffectual and half-hearted attempts to determine not only the origin but the breadth of the scandal. In fact I would argue that the NCAA has acted more as a co-conspirator in covering up the scandal than it has in terms of uncovering anything. (Have they ever adequately explained what former UNC football player and then NCAA-staffer Marcus Wilson was doing on campus ahead of the news of an impending probe ?)
As far as other potential areas of investigation I'm talking about things like Wheels for Heels, the Dental Foundation and Tami Hansbrough, the Learning Disability Center and its ties to Fats, other classes outside AFAM like the Naval Studies class, Jan Boxil's Women's studies classes among many other things. And that's just with regards to the NCAA. What about a federal probe into Pell Grant fraud etc.?
If the NCAA fails to bring the hammer, then as far as I'm concerned it just opens the next stage in this long drawn-out saga of why has the NCAA self-limited their scope? Why have they essentially farmed-out their investigation to the very people who are most intent on covering up the wrong-doing? Why have they proven to be so ineffective and why shouldn't the NCAA itself be investigated as a co-conspirator at this point?
I don't think even the NCAA is that dumb and willing to risk destroying themselves over a group of self-serving and non-repenting a-holes like the group that runs UNC-Chapel Hill.
Last edited:
JP
I love reading your post ,not only on this topic , but I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the NCAA, is that dumb, and will do what ever they can to avoid any type of harsh penalty to UNCheat. I think they will drag their feet for as long as possible and then let them off as easy as they possibly can. I really hope I am wrong!!
I love reading your post ,not only on this topic , but I have to disagree with you on this one. I think the NCAA, is that dumb, and will do what ever they can to avoid any type of harsh penalty to UNCheat. I think they will drag their feet for as long as possible and then let them off as easy as they possibly can. I really hope I am wrong!!
http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/updates/unc-chapel-hill-releases-ncaa-notice-of-allegations/
Talk about a data dump. Thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty of enterprising Wolfpack fans going through this as we speak.
Talk about a data dump. Thankfully, I'm sure there are plenty of enterprising Wolfpack fans going through this as we speak.
Who were the 10 athletes that exceeded the 12 hours of independent study courses?
The link you sent went to the NCAA's original NOA and addendum from earlier this year, but I think what you meant to reference was a set of new documents being released from the Wainstein investigation.
http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/records/
I'm sure there will be a lot of juicy tidbits to come out of this. And there's apparently much more to come in the future.
FWIW, I wonder when it will finally dawn on the Tar Heel dummies that dragging this scandal out for years will end up doing more harm than good.
Not sure the specifics but from reading another board sounds like one issue that is mentioned in these additional documents is that some UNC players might not have even taken 12 hours of classes in a semester.
This could be important because in order to retain their eligibility athletes are supposed to take sufficient credits and be on track to graduate. The schools are required to certify that their athletes have fulfilled these requirements.
In the past I've argued that UNC committed fraud by certifying their athletes were eligible even though they should have known that these classes were fraudulent. (Mary Willingham admitted as much.). If it turns out that the athletes weren't even taking enough credits (whether fraudulent or not) then it's even more clear-cut to be in violation of NCAA regulations.
Last edited:
From what I am reading, I think Bradley Bethel's documentary is dead in the water unless he wants to make a complete idiot of himself. Oh well, he has already done that so I guess doing it again is no big deal.
"A 2008 email from an assistant dean in the academic advising program warned that the university could no longer code students as full-time if they were enrolled in fewer than 12 hours of courses.
"We have recently learned that this can no longer happen because it 'violates the law' in some way," the assistant dean wrote. "Our office will need to know from you what procedure to follow in January for student-athletes who may be affected by this new policy."
Read more at http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-re...mic-fraud-probe/15004225/#43WBaaugRRs6cOGC.99
Similar threads
