UNC attorney playing bias against Sankey and investigation

[KMKAT]

Here is the Auburn NY Times version: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html

I'm seeing approx. 97 hours of credit being given, so if that's the same as UNC, I've missed that tidbit.

Let me add that the Auburn scandal didn't go on for decades. It was cleaned up once exposed by other professors.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Here is the Auburn NY Times version: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html

I'm seeing approx. 97 hours of credit being given, so if that's the same as UNC, I've missed that tidbit.

Let me add that the Auburn scandal didn't go on for decades. It was cleaned up once exposed by other professors.

It appears that the two professors at Auburn also gave out grades to keep athletes eligible without requiring them to do little if any work (252 independent studies in one year). So, on the surface it looks like the difference is the shear magnitude of fake courses and people involved. I'm not sure a defense of Auburn was "yeah we cheated but only a little". It seems that those players would also have been ruled ineligible. Do you know why they weren't?

 

[jarms24]

Few things ...

• UNC was charged with LOIC and Extra Benefits. What was Auburn charged with? Academic Misconduct? Could be the difference, and could explain why Enforcement went with Extra Benefits in the UNC case, because it's easier to make it stick without them overstepping their boundaries into the academic space.
• Auburn's self investigation did not admit to any wrongdoing. UNC has had like 5-6 that have each shown misconduct, and the results of each indicate that it's a systemic problem that extends well beyond AFAM. Plus, Chancellor Folt and AD Cunningham both have admitted that it was fraud, and SACS did the same. Even put them on probation for it.
• Plus, let's just be real ... Auburn didn't chest thump about "The Auburn Way" like Carolina did. If you're gonna claim that you're the Harvard of the South, then don't manufacture high GPA's to keep your dumbs eligible.

 

[TankedCat]

well I don't want to defend Auburn in this as it was clearly a benefit to athletes that regular students couldn't access

that said, no one is disputing the athletes did real work on their own , no one is claiming grades were requested to keep the athlete's eligible and no one is saying the classes were no show/fake - at least in that article

What they are saying is they don't hold up the academic standards of the other classes in the Sociology department and athletes were attracted to that.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Few things ...

• UNC was charged with LOIC and Extra Benefits. What was Auburn charged with? Academic Misconduct? Could be the difference, and could explain why Enforcement went with Extra Benefits in the UNC case, because it's easier to make it stick without them overstepping their boundaries into the academic space.
• Auburn's self investigation did not admit to any wrongdoing. UNC has had like 5-6 that have each shown misconduct, and the results of each indicate that it's a systemic problem that extends well beyond AFAM. Plus, Chancellor Folt and AD Cunningham both have admitted that it was fraud, and SACS did the same. Even put them on probation for it.
• Plus, let's just be real ... Auburn didn't chest thump about "The Auburn Way" like Carolina did. If you're gonna claim that you're the Harvard of the South, then don't manufacture high GPA's to keep your dumbs eligible.

You could be right, but I doubt the NCAA would simply take Auburn's word for it...especially considering they (Auburn) found that the players did little if any work. I also don't think the NCAA would not punish them because they didn't brag like UNC did. There must be some other reason for why they didn't rule those players ineligible...unless they (NCAA) are being inconsistent with their rulings. But, UKfanincincy says that is not the case (that they are not being inconsistent) so it would be nice if they could further explain it.

But yeah, I agree with you, that minus the constant bragging and shear magnitude of players involved, they both seem the same on the surface of it (once again, assuming that the NCAA didn't simply say that because Auburn said they should not be punished then they won't punish them).

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

well I don't want to defend Auburn in this as it was clearly a benefit to athletes that regular students couldn't access

that said, no one is disputing the athletes did real work on their own , no one is claiming grades were requested to keep the athlete's eligible and no one is saying the classes were no show/fake - at least in that article

What they are saying is they don't hold up the academic standards of the other classes in the Sociology department and athletes were attracted to that.

That is exactly what this article is saying:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/14auburn.html

In fact, Auburn was also placed on probation by their accrediting agency, just like UNC. It seems that these two case are very close to each other. It almost seems like Auburn found out what UNC was doing and implemented it in their sociology department. But, their must be something different between them, otherwise Auburn would have had to rule lots of players ineligible. Just looking for that difference. However, it might not be open to the public.

If it is the same, then people should be raising hell for Auburn and their football team.

 

[jarms24]

You could be right, but I doubt the NCAA would simply take Auburn's word for it...especially considering they (Auburn) found that the players did little if any work. I also don't think the NCAA would not punish them because they didn't brag like UNC did. There must be some other reason for why they didn't rule those players ineligible...unless they (NCAA) are being inconsistent with their rulings. But, UKfanincincy says that is not the case (that they are not being inconsistent) so it would be nice if they could further explain it.

But yeah, I agree with you, that minus the constant bragging and shear magnitude of players involved, they both seem the same on the surface of it (once again, assuming that the NCAA didn't simply say that because Auburn said they should not be punished then they won't punish them).

I'd have to study the Auburn case more to understand the nuances, but I'm pretty sure I didn't say "They both seem the same on the surface." UNC had a secretary assigning artificially high grades to maintain eligibility for crying out loud. This happened for over 2 decades.

 

[jarms24]

@feel_the_mashburn Another thing to consider is that the NCAA likely would have looked the other way in UNC's case, and after the 2nd ANOA, it looked like they were going to, but UNC arrogantly poked the bear. Also, you need to consider the current climate. The NCAA is under attack for amateurism, and this is their opportunity to prove that they do care about student-athletes. When the Auburn situation came up, it wasn't an issue. I'm not saying it's fair, but when has the NCAA ever been fair?

 

[UKnCincy]

Auburn was an academic issue, not an athletic issue. NCAA closed that investigation in 2008 and found only a few secondary violations.

Just because there are academic issues at a school with certain classes that are attended by athletes, that does not mean there are also NCAA violations. If a professor decides to just start mailing it in and begins handing out "A's" to anyone who attends without requiring work, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA violation, even if a few athletes signed up for the course. That's an academic problem.

There are a number of questions that have to be asked to determine if it's also an NCAA violation.

• Is there evidence that the lax classwork was started primarily for the benefit of athlete eligibility?
• Is there evidence that athletics was aware of these classes and if so, did they either actively steer athletes to the course for the purpose of maintaining eligibility or did they fail to raise any alarms to the institution?
• Did these activities violate documented University policies, and if so, were athletes treated differently than non-athletes during any procedures after the issues were discovered?
• Etc.

In the case of Auburn, the school conducted an investigation and found no evidence to support these things. Further, disciplinary action was taken only against the faculty. No one from athletics was disciplined.

In the case of UNC, UNC investigated and found that these types of things had in fact occurred and self-reported them to the NCAA using the Weinstein report. They also immediately terminated several of the athletics academics advisors because of their involvement. At UNC, this is clearly an athletics issue, as UNC has already admitted.

 

[preacherfan]

@feel_the_mashburn Another thing to consider is that the NCAA likely would have looked the other way in UNC's case, and after the 2nd ANOA, it looked like they were going to, but UNC arrogantly poked the bear. Also, you need to consider the current climate. The NCAA is under attack for amateurism, and this is their opportunity to prove that they do care about student-athletes. When the Auburn situation came up, it wasn't an issue. I'm not saying it's fair, but when has the NCAA ever been fair?

I think it is often difficult to look at one case and decide how another case will be decided. Memphis was hammered based on strict liability of an invalidated test score. UNLV had a player sit out late in the season for an invalidated test score. But, UNLV was never penalized for the games the ineligible player participated in.

Also, Maggette took money. But, somehow Duke is the only school not punished in any way, shape, or form for playing a player who took money from Myron Piggie.

Using Auburn as an example for how UNC can or should be treated just makes no sense. The facts are very different and, as you said, it was a different time. The NCAA isn't bound by precedent.

 

[preacherfan]

Auburn was an academic issue, not an athletic issue. NCAA closed that investigation in 2008 and found only a few secondary violations.

Just because there are academic issues at a school with certain classes that are attended by athletes, that does not mean there are also NCAA violations. If a professor decides to just start mailing it in and begins handing out "A's" to anyone who attends without requiring work, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA violation, even if a few athletes signed up for the course. That's an academic problem.

There are a number of questions that have to be asked to determine if it's also an NCAA violation.

• Is there evidence that the lax classwork was started primarily for the benefit of athlete eligibility?
• Is there evidence that athletics was aware of these classes and if so, did they either actively steer athletes to the course for the purpose of maintaining eligibility or did they fail to raise any alarms to the institution?
• Did these activities violate documented University policies, and if so, were athletes treated differently than non-athletes during any procedures after the issues were discovered?
• Etc.

In the case of Auburn, the school conducted an investigation and found no evidence to support these things. Further, disciplinary action was taken only against the faculty. No one from athletics was disciplined.

In the case of UNC, UNC investigated and found that these types of things had in fact occurred and self-reported them to the NCAA using the Weinstein report. They also immediately terminated several of the athletics academics advisors because of their involvement. At UNC, this is clearly an athletics issue, as UNC has already admitted.

Auburn was a professor issue. UNC had a secretary running the diploma mill department. It is VERY different as anyone with common sense would understand. Our resident troll lacks that.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Auburn was an academic issue, not an athletic issue. NCAA closed that investigation in 2008 and found only a few secondary violations.

Just because there are academic issues at a school with certain classes that are attended by athletes, that does not mean there are also NCAA violations. If a professor decides to just start mailing it in and begins handing out "A's" to anyone who attends without requiring work, that in and of itself isn't an NCAA violation, even if a few athletes signed up for the course. That's an academic problem.

There are a number of questions that have to be asked to determine if it's also an NCAA violation.

• Is there evidence that the lax classwork was started primarily for the benefit of athlete eligibility?
• Is there evidence that athletics was aware of these classes and if so, did they either actively steer athletes to the course for the purpose of maintaining eligibility or did they fail to raise any alarms to the institution?
• Did these activities violate documented University policies, and if so, were athletes treated differently than non-athletes during any procedures after the issues were discovered?
• Etc.

In the case of Auburn, the school conducted an investigation and found no evidence to support these things. Further, disciplinary action was taken only against the faculty. No one from athletics was disciplined.

In the case of UNC, UNC investigated and found that these types of things had in fact occurred and self-reported them to the NCAA using the Weinstein report. They also immediately terminated several of the athletics academics advisors because of their involvement. At UNC, this is clearly an athletics issue, as UNC has already admitted.

Forgive my ignorance, again, but to me I don't see how Auburn and UNC are that far off. By this I mean they both are athletic and academic issues. They both had courses set up for athletes (in Auburn's case they were only for athletes, in UNC's case they were for both). In both cases the athletes did little if any work for their grades, which kept them eligible as such. In both cases the schools investigated and found that they did not (in their eyes) violate NCAA by-laws. The key differences are that UNC did this for 20+ years while Auburn did this for a few semesters, and that UNC had a secretary grading the papers while the professor signed off on her grades.

The checklist you provided was/is checked by both schools. How is Auburn not an athletic issue?

Now, I understand that you cannot compare other cases to each other. However, it does seem that Auburn got away with cheating here. At least according to the articles. If you are saying that they did not break any rules, then how can you say UNC broke any rules. They were doing the same things that UNC were doing.

I guess I keep coming back to the same question, which is: what line did UNC cross that Auburn did not, thus violating by-laws? Is it simply that Auburn said they didn't violate any of their own rules with their fake courses, but UNC said they did violate their own rules with their fake classes?

 

[jarms24]

Rinse and repeat

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

@preacherfan I can appreciate that everyone has an opinion and I usually try to respect everyone's opinion, even if it differs from my views. However, would you mind sitting this thread out? You are only cluttering up a pretty good discussion with comments that are not adding any relevant insight. If you want to bash, just send those cut-downs to my inbox.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Rinse and repeat

?

 

[kybassfan]

These UNC lawyers are attacking this case like they are involved in a murder case and someone's life is at stake. This is beyond ridiculous.

I would if I were them. Hired guns like to keep shooting. Money money money.

 

[kybassfan]

@preacherfan I can appreciate that everyone has an opinion and I usually try to respect everyone's opinion, even if it differs from my views. However, would you mind sitting this thread out? You are only cluttering up a pretty good discussion with comments that are not adding any relevant insight. If you want to bash, just send those cut-downs to my inbox.

Actually Preacher Fan is among the best read and informed posters on this board regarding this subject. I'd say a toss up between him and Jon. If you find yourself on different side of this topic than Preacher, I'd suggest you either have misread your source material or you have none and are simply trying to argue in favor of the team you support.

Bottom line is that the attorney is nothing more than a hired gun. He has orders. Clearly that is to defend at all costs and keep the ball in the air. Let no decision come down. There is no due process. The guy acts like he is arguing precedent in a court of law. He's a laughing stock. And NC filth will make him rich for it.

 

[martinsm30]

Forgive my ignorance, again, but to me I don't see how Auburn and UNC are that far off. By this I mean they both are athletic and academic issues. They both had courses set up for athletes (in Auburn's case they were only for athletes, in UNC's case they were for both). In both cases the athletes did little if any work for their grades, which kept them eligible as such. In both cases the schools investigated and found that they did not (in their eyes) violate NCAA by-laws. The key differences are that UNC did this for 20+ years while Auburn did this for a few semesters, and that UNC had a secretary grading the papers while the professor signed off on her grades.

The checklist you provided was/is checked by both schools. How is Auburn not an athletic issue?

Now, I understand that you cannot compare other cases to each other. However, it does seem that Auburn got away with cheating here. At least according to the articles. If you are saying that they did not break any rules, then how can you say UNC broke any rules. They were doing the same things that UNC were doing.

I guess I keep coming back to the same question, which is: what line did UNC cross that Auburn did not, thus violating by-laws? Is it simply that Auburn said they didn't violate any of their own rules with their fake courses, but UNC said they did violate their own rules with their fake classes?

Interesting that you completely ignored this part of UKinCincy's post:

In the case of UNC, UNC investigated and found that these types of things had in fact occurred and self-reported them to the NCAA using the Weinstein report. They also immediately terminated several of the athletics academics advisors because of their involvement. At UNC, this is clearly an athletics issue, as UNC has already admitted.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Actually Preacher Fan is among the best read and informed posters on this board regarding this subject. I'd say a toss up between him and Jon. If you find yourself on different side of this topic than Preacher, I'd suggest you either have misread your source material or you have none and are simply trying to argue in favor of the team you support.

Bottom line is that the attorney is nothing more than a hired gun. He has orders. Clearly that is to defend at all costs and keep the ball in the air. Let no decision come down. There is no due process. The guy acts like he is arguing precedent in a court of law. He's a laughing stock. And NC filth will make him rich for it.

I think it must be some kind of inferiority complex towards UNC then. As soon as anyone brings up anything related to UNC a few posters immediately jump on them and accuse them of being secret UNC fan-boys. I'm simply trying to figure out why Auburn didn't get hammered for their fake classes. They had a scheme that was incredibly similar to UNC's fake curriculum. Yet, no one wants to talk about how they got away with cheating. But, rather than discussing it, they accuse me of being some other poster. Finally @UKfanincincy was nice enough to answer, but I still have a few unresolved questions.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Interesting that you completely ignored this part of UKinCincy's post:

In the case of UNC, UNC investigated and found that these types of things had in fact occurred and self-reported them to the NCAA using the Weinstein report. They also immediately terminated several of the athletics academics advisors because of their involvement. At UNC, this is clearly an athletics issue, as UNC has already admitted.

I think this is wrong. UNC is arguing that the NCAA should not be able to use the Wainstein report. So, they would not have self-reported them "using the Wainstein report". The NCAA is using it, without UNC's blessing. That's one of the things they are trying to get thrown out.

They did admit to SACS that those fake classes were indeed fake. Do you think this is what UKinCincy mean't to say? If so, is it right to assume that Auburn was not "found" to have broken any by-laws because they said their fake classes didn't violate any of their own policies, while UNC told SACS their fake classes did violate their (UNC's) policies?

 

[KyFaninNC]

Cheats are playing every card in the deck. I will be glad when all 52 of them are played.

 

[TM2013]

Either you are a troll or the densest person ever

 

[martinsm30]

I think this is wrong. UNC is arguing that the NCAA should not be able to use the Wainstein report. So, they would not have self-reported them "using the Wainstein report". The NCAA is using it, without UNC's blessing. That's one of the things they are trying to get thrown out.

They did admit to SACS that those fake classes were indeed fake. Do you think this is what UKinCincy mean't to say? If so, is it right to assume that Auburn was not "found" to have broken any by-laws because they said their fake classes didn't violate any of their own policies, while UNC told SACS their fake classes did violate their (UNC's) policies?

Very interesting outlook. Just curious, do you sell shoes for a living? Oh and you can think all you want. UNC commissioned the report and it shows they are guilty.

Funny how UNC commissions a report that shows they are guilty but this doesn't spur them to come clean and self punish. No, they just keep fighting even though their own report shows they are guilty. Amazing how UNC has no ethics. Even Louisville, as horrible as that they are, admitted fault for their sleaze.

 

[preacherfan]

Very interesting outlook. Just curious, do you sell shoes for a living?

Nailed it!

 

[preacherfan]

@preacherfan I can appreciate that everyone has an opinion and I usually try to respect everyone's opinion, even if it differs from my views. However, would you mind sitting this thread out? You are only cluttering up a pretty good discussion with comments that are not adding any relevant insight. If you want to bash, just send those cut-downs to my inbox.

Dude, you were the one making the obnoxious sarcastic remarks. I am all for an open and honest discussion. But, when it is obvious that you are only here to be a jerk, well, I call it like I see it. If you don't like it, there is an ignore button. Just use it.

 

[UKnCincy]

Forgive my ignorance, again, but to me I don't see how Auburn and UNC are that far off. By this I mean they both are athletic and academic issues. They both had courses set up for athletes (in Auburn's case they were only for athletes, in UNC's case they were for both). In both cases the athletes did little if any work for their grades, which kept them eligible as such. In both cases the schools investigated and found that they did not (in their eyes) violate NCAA by-laws. The key differences are that UNC did this for 20+ years while Auburn did this for a few semesters, and that UNC had a secretary grading the papers while the professor signed off on her grades.

The checklist you provided was/is checked by both schools. How is Auburn not an athletic issue?

Now, I understand that you cannot compare other cases to each other. However, it does seem that Auburn got away with cheating here. At least according to the articles. If you are saying that they did not break any rules, then how can you say UNC broke any rules. They were doing the same things that UNC were doing.

I guess I keep coming back to the same question, which is: what line did UNC cross that Auburn did not, thus violating by-laws? Is it simply that Auburn said they didn't violate any of their own rules with their fake courses, but UNC said they did violate their own rules with their fake classes?

If you think they're the same, then you didn't read my post carefully. Or you simply can't keep up, in which case, I can't help you. My post is pretty clear. The two are night and day.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Very interesting outlook. Just curious, do you sell shoes for a living? Oh and you can think all you want. UNC commissioned the report and it shows they are guilty.

Funny how UNC commissions a report that shows they are guilty but this doesn't spur them to come clean and self punish. No, they just keep fighting even though their own report shows they are guilty. Amazing how UNC has no ethics. Even Louisville, as horrible as that they are, admitted fault for their sleaze.

Would it not have been easier to just answer the questions? Why resort to attempts at insults? I guess you are trying to say that, yes UKincincy meant to say that UNC self-reported to SACS, but not to the NCAA. But, it would be so much nicer if you would clarify/answer those questions. If you are too busy then I understand.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

If you think they're the same, then you didn't read my post carefully. Or you simply can't keep up, in which case, I can't help you. My post is pretty clear. The two are night and day.

I seriously don't see how they are night and day. Do you mind, for the last time, explaining how they are different? Please, feel free to spell it out completely for me. I really want to understand what is the difference between the two cases. If you could, and I know this is asking a lot (especially considering your feelings towards me at the moment), please list how they are different and (if any reasons) why they are similar.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Dude, you were the one making the obnoxious sarcastic remarks. I am all for an open and honest discussion. But, when it is obvious that you are only here to be a jerk, well, I call it like I see it. If you don't like it, there is an ignore button. Just use it.

Understood. Now, please be the bigger person and walk away.

 

[UKnCincy]

I seriously don't see how they are night and day. Do you mind, for the last time, explaining how they are different? Please, feel free to spell it out completely for me. I really want to understand what is the difference between the two cases. If you could, and I know this is asking a lot (especially considering your feelings towards me at the moment), please list how they are different and (if any reasons) why they are similar.

There was no evidence the Auburn classes were created for the benefit of student athletes (athletes comprised only 18% of students that took those classes). There is no evidence that members of the athletics department were aware of the classes and funneled players to them. There is no evidence athletes received special treatment with respect to those classes, nor with how they were handled once discovered. There was no disclipinary action taken against anyone in the athletics department at Auburn over the classes.

UNC is the exact opposite on almost all of those factors. And UNC has essentially admitted to this and self-reported it by providing the NCAA with a copy of the Wainstein Report and by asking Wainstein to provide the NCAA with direct updates on the investigation while it was occurring.

These two are completely different. Even the probation piece you chose to highlight initially is completely different. Auburn was put on probation two years before these classes became public and for completely different reasons. The fact that the probation piece was mentioned in the article is simply an example of Pete Thamel being a douche and putting two unrelated things next to each other to imply a bigger issue.

 

[preacherfan]

Understood. Now, please be the bigger person and walk away.

Good grief!! If you want me gone just email a mod like ol jiggletooth did when he thought I was being mean.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

There was no evidence the Auburn classes were created for the benefit of student athletes (athletes comprised only 18% of students that took those classes). There is no evidence that members of the athletics department were aware of the classes and funneled players to them. There is no evidence athletes received special treatment with respect to those classes, nor with how they were handled once discovered. There was no disclipinary action taken against anyone in the athletics department at Auburn over the classes.

UNC is the exact opposite on almost all of those factors. And UNC has essentially admitted to this and self-reported it by providing the NCAA with a copy of the Wainstein Report and by asking Wainstein to provide the NCAA with direct updates on the investigation while it was occurring.

These two are completely different. Even the probation piece you chose to highlight initially is completely different. Auburn was put on probation two years before these classes became public and for completely different reasons. The fact that the probation piece was mentioned in the article is simply an example of Pete Thamel being a douche and putting two unrelated things next to each other to imply a bigger issue.

Thank you.

 

[martinsm30]

Would it not have been easier to just answer the questions? Why resort to attempts at insults? I guess you are trying to say that, yes UKincincy meant to say that UNC self-reported to SACS, but not to the NCAA. But, it would be so much nicer if you would clarify/answer those questions. If you are too busy then I understand.

Part of me feels sorry for you. The movie didn't turn out the way you thought. Were you able to find a new job?

 

[ccukuk]

So, by stepping aside he would help the COI's case stick, yet you don't think he'll do that. It sounds like you think that the NCAA/COI doesn't want to tie up all their loose ends.

I personally think the odds of him stepping aside are much higher than "small", considering his position at the time of the Auburn case. But, I'm not one of the seemingly infinite number of brain surgeons and lawyers we have on the internet these days. So I'll just have to wait and see.

We do not have an infinite number of brain surgeons on this site. As to lawyers, it's possible, with many not practicing law. That said, I consider my latter guestimate a positive for humanity. To all offended attorneys, two in the family, yes, have needed their advice before. Statement was in jest, please carry on with your billing hours.
If btw you want to argue education and time spent in school, I have 3 years on top of of a jd.

 

[feel_the_mashburn]

Part of me feels sorry for you. The movie didn't turn out the way you thought. Were you able to find a new job?

What on earth are you talking about?

 

[kybassfan]

I think it must be some kind of inferiority complex towards UNC then. As soon as anyone brings up anything related to UNC a few posters immediately jump on them and accuse them of being secret UNC fan-boys. I'm simply trying to figure out why Auburn didn't get hammered for their fake classes. They had a scheme that was incredibly similar to UNC's fake curriculum. Yet, no one wants to talk about how they got away with cheating. But, rather than discussing it, they accuse me of being some other poster. Finally @UKfanincincy was nice enough to answer, but I still have a few unresolved questions.

Actually, I didn't accuse you of being a fanboi of filth. I just suggested your reading skills weren't up to par.

Both maybe?

First, Auburn's situation is very different. It's well published. Go read.

Second. The duration was a LOOOOOOOT shorter.

The situation with the FILTH is cut and dry. That's why the NCAA's reputation is at stake.

By the way, why should anyone have to answer a single thing you ask?

 

[jauk11]

Coach Roy chimes in, Dadgummit.

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/...sident-loh-a-double-idiot-20170412-story.html

 

[the stat man]

Wait so is this guy Crowder's attorney or UNC's? It claims he's Crowder's but he seems to be overly concerned with the NCAA-UNC case.

This illustrates a point I made when Crowder first came "forward" at the 11th hour. Seems it's driven more to benefit UNC's case by giving them yet another delay in the case, versus anything to benefit Crowder.

This is purely a delay tactic by UNC. Hopefully the NCAA understands this and the next time they try to pull this stunt they're slapped with being uncooperative on top of everything else.

Mr Scott I so hope your right!! This is beyond believeable any more !! 18 million dollars of the tax payers money and counting. I would like to see someone create a clock or counter that keeps adding the money spend and keep sending it to the news services , not espn that would be a total waste of time !!

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

UNC's response to the second NOA was that the NCAA had no jurisdiction on the issue and was not in a position to issue the NOA in the first place. Absent new exculpatory information, UNC has removed a watering down of the NOA as an option by turning this into an all or nothing proposition.

As to whether they will get hammered, UNC disagrees with your assessment. Hence the textbook litigation communications strategy they've started running. An attorney who is confident in the strength of their position in this case does not leak two letters drafted on behalf of their client to a North Carolina based member of the press. You seem to be missing what's playing out here.

Since they are a "voluntary" member of the NCAA, do they even have standing to file suit against them? Has any university ever filed suit successfully against the NCAA other than the TV issue back in '84? This isn't an antitrust issue.

 

[jarms24]

I would also think that since UNC voluntarily pledges membership to the NCAA, by default, they agree to all the bylaws, including the process in which the COI is formed and the members of the COI.