The UNC board is banning anyone that is not a UNC rivals member. Even if you have never made a post on that board. Must be concerned that a fan of another school is going to say something negatiive concerning their cheating ways.
UNC will release NCAA’s Notice of Allegations today
- Thread starter saxonburgcat
- Start date
The UNC board is banning anyone that is not a UNC rivals member. Even if you have never made a post on that board. Must be concerned that a fan of another school is going to say something negatiive concerning their cheating ways.
UNC , their fans and tiny mods are used to controlling the narrative for UNC . Anytime something about UNC was questioned they could point to the Carolina Way or what is now known as their cheating to silence criticism . When others had issues or not they yelled down from high ground because their fraud of a school afforded them the position .
Now they are suddenly beneath everyone and can't defend UNC without the facade , they ban people because it's all they can do and that's how far they've fallen . It drives them up the touching wall that they cannot control the discussion of UNC on this board , they want to lash out at us with their fake bs but they can't because everyone knows the truth now . It doesn't matter if the cheating , backwater , Mayberry mouth breather , inbred , slope headed , toofless , bandana wearin , deer huntin morons want to hide from the truth over there .
Now they are suddenly beneath everyone and can't defend UNC without the facade , they ban people because it's all they can do and that's how far they've fallen . It drives them up the touching wall that they cannot control the discussion of UNC on this board , they want to lash out at us with their fake bs but they can't because everyone knows the truth now . It doesn't matter if the cheating , backwater , Mayberry mouth breather , inbred , slope headed , toofless , bandana wearin , deer huntin morons want to hide from the truth over there .
It's about time "Rivals" did some house cleaning!!! Remove the unc site Mods and let it be ran fairly through this process....yeah right, that will happen about the time I get my "third set of teeth"- J. Wayne
actually the new format let some old scum through the cracks - lol
http://northcarolina.forums.rivals....tting-at-least-a-top-5-recruiting-class.9759/
http://northcarolina.forums.rivals....tting-at-least-a-top-5-recruiting-class.9759/
Am reading Tarnished Heels on vacation . Halfway through . If only a tenth of what the author says is true It truly beats the FSU and Minn scandals.
I now believe the NCAA has no choice but to hit them hard. The,alternative for them is total loss of credibility by the media which if it happens will be death by ten thousand cuts,.
I now believe the NCAA has no choice but to hit them hard. The,alternative for them is total loss of credibility by the media which if it happens will be death by ten thousand cuts,.
I just wonder how many time that Roy Williams said I didn't know to the NCAA!!!
Reference to the FI250 in the NOA supplementary information was made on the other thread (about the Dan Kane article) in a comment. Looking at that exhibit is interesting, as they basically go back as far as 1997-98 in the UNC undergraduate bulletin.
For example the 1997-98 UNC undergraduate bulletin mentions Independent Studies (which it clearly says are correspondence courses) and says that a student may earn 30 semester hours of credit toward a degree. But it also says that "students attending classes may not enroll in an Independent Studies course at the same time without the written consent of their deans."
Later there's a section on "Special Studies for Credit" where it mentions "Variable amounts of credit up to six hours per semester and twelve hours total for graduation may be taken for graded credit."
A couple of points: If players during this time were taking paper classes, it appears that these would not be 'independent study' classes as defined by the school at the time because they were on-campus and presumably taking actual classes at some point. The only way they could do this would involve express written consent by the Deans. So if UNC wants to argue this point, then they either broke their own policies or the Deans were complicit and should have known what was going on in terms of the large number of athletes and large number of such classes involved. (i.e. the scandal can't be blamed solely on a secretary). So this is an area the NCAA should pursue vigorously IMO.
Otherwise, if the classes fall under "Special Studies for Credit", then it goes back to the earlier issue which was discussed regarding the fact that a student can't use more than 12 hours of these classes for credit towards graduation. (and can't use more than six hours per semester), which goes back to my original comment when this whole scandal started to break, that someone needs to go back and comb through the past few decades of transcripts looking for these types of patterns. (which they finally start to do in exhibit FI249, FI248 etc.)
Remember that part of the NCAA's regulations are that the school has to certify that their athletes are not only taking a minimum number of credits each semester, but that they are 'on-track to graduate'. In cases where an athlete has already taken 12 hours-worth of these classes, then any additional class beyond that would not be applicable towards graduation, which in turn means UNC can't rely on those classes when they certify their athletes are in good standing and eligible for competition.
This helps to explain why Debbie Crowder was deceptive in characterizing many of her bogus paper classes as 'lecture-style' classes, even though there was no lecture and indeed no instruction involved.
Unlike what Bobby claims (saying that the 12 hour rule only came into effect in 2012 well after Crowder left), this 12-hour rule appears to be in place going back to at least 1997-98, and probably far longer.
Starting in 2006-07, the exhibit no longer provides any reference to correspondence classes, but retains the "Special Studies for Credit" section, which still mentions the "Twelve hours of graded special studies credit may be counted toward graduation, though no more than six hours may be taken in any one semester."
Again the supplementary exhibits can be downloaded at the link below:
NCAA NOA supplementary exhibits (pdf)
Curious what other people think.
For example the 1997-98 UNC undergraduate bulletin mentions Independent Studies (which it clearly says are correspondence courses) and says that a student may earn 30 semester hours of credit toward a degree. But it also says that "students attending classes may not enroll in an Independent Studies course at the same time without the written consent of their deans."
Later there's a section on "Special Studies for Credit" where it mentions "Variable amounts of credit up to six hours per semester and twelve hours total for graduation may be taken for graded credit."
A couple of points: If players during this time were taking paper classes, it appears that these would not be 'independent study' classes as defined by the school at the time because they were on-campus and presumably taking actual classes at some point. The only way they could do this would involve express written consent by the Deans. So if UNC wants to argue this point, then they either broke their own policies or the Deans were complicit and should have known what was going on in terms of the large number of athletes and large number of such classes involved. (i.e. the scandal can't be blamed solely on a secretary). So this is an area the NCAA should pursue vigorously IMO.
Otherwise, if the classes fall under "Special Studies for Credit", then it goes back to the earlier issue which was discussed regarding the fact that a student can't use more than 12 hours of these classes for credit towards graduation. (and can't use more than six hours per semester), which goes back to my original comment when this whole scandal started to break, that someone needs to go back and comb through the past few decades of transcripts looking for these types of patterns. (which they finally start to do in exhibit FI249, FI248 etc.)
Remember that part of the NCAA's regulations are that the school has to certify that their athletes are not only taking a minimum number of credits each semester, but that they are 'on-track to graduate'. In cases where an athlete has already taken 12 hours-worth of these classes, then any additional class beyond that would not be applicable towards graduation, which in turn means UNC can't rely on those classes when they certify their athletes are in good standing and eligible for competition.
This helps to explain why Debbie Crowder was deceptive in characterizing many of her bogus paper classes as 'lecture-style' classes, even though there was no lecture and indeed no instruction involved.
Unlike what Bobby claims (saying that the 12 hour rule only came into effect in 2012 well after Crowder left), this 12-hour rule appears to be in place going back to at least 1997-98, and probably far longer.
Starting in 2006-07, the exhibit no longer provides any reference to correspondence classes, but retains the "Special Studies for Credit" section, which still mentions the "Twelve hours of graded special studies credit may be counted toward graduation, though no more than six hours may be taken in any one semester."
Again the supplementary exhibits can be downloaded at the link below:
NCAA NOA supplementary exhibits (pdf)
Curious what other people think.
And another thing, the 12-hour rule plays a key point to the NCAA as evidenced by the previous items which were not made public in the download, but are described in the NOA itself. For example:
FI245: August 28, 2014 – Interview transcript of Betsy Taylor (Taylor), student services manager with the academic advising program in the college of arts and sciences and the general college. This includes, but is not limited to, Taylor's understanding that the anomalous courses taught in the AFRI/AFAM department were independent study courses.
(BTaylor_TR_082814_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI246: August 29, 2014 – Interview transcript of Jay Smith (J. Smith), professor in the department of history. This includes, but is not limited to, J. Smith's description of the 12-hour-rule limitation for independent study courses.
(JSmith_TR_082914_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI247: July 31, 2014 – Interview transcript of Malloy. This includes, but is not limited to, Malloy's understanding of the 12-hour limitation on independent study courses.
(SMalloy_TR_073114_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department.
(Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses.
(AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina_00231)
(BTaylor_TR_082814_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI246: August 29, 2014 – Interview transcript of Jay Smith (J. Smith), professor in the department of history. This includes, but is not limited to, J. Smith's description of the 12-hour-rule limitation for independent study courses.
(JSmith_TR_082914_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI247: July 31, 2014 – Interview transcript of Malloy. This includes, but is not limited to, Malloy's understanding of the 12-hour limitation on independent study courses.
(SMalloy_TR_073114_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department.
(Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses.
(AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina_00231)
This just in: UNC will bring in Rachel Dolezal to chair their AFAM department and right the ship ... I'll be here all week, folks. Tip your bartenders and waitresses.
I was completely shocked by Bobby's claims because every school I have attended or been affliated with had restrictions on these types of classes. The idea that UNC didn't have restrictions was surprising to me. Your research and findings make far more sense, especially for students on campus.
Wainstein says Crowder began implementing the bogus "lecture style" classes no later than 1999. She either believed the 6/12 rule applied to independent studies or that athletes were in danger of exceeding the 30 hour rule. Otherwise she would have had no reason for creating the fake classes.
I agree that either UNC violated school policy by allowing students to participate in independent studies while enrolled in on-campus classes or the deans were complicit in the academic fraud. The Wainstein Report says some records relevant to their investigation were either lost or destroyed. Written permission from the deans for athletes to participate in these classes is likely to be part of those missing records.
Last edited:
I've said this a couple of times in different ways, but I 100% believe the NCAA worded the NOA in such a way that they had the ability to gauge public reaction to it and then deliver punishment based on it.
The work being done here to dissect the NOA, Dan Kane continuing his reporting and what I suspect are similar efforts at Pack Pride among other entities and interested parties is important because it educates the readers and thus reduces UNC's ability to partner with the NCAA in walking away with a slap on the wrist. It may seem like its just some message board fans talking but its serves a bigger purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bobby_G variation floating around on multiple sites trying to marginalize any discussion on the depth and scope of UNC cheating in an effort to protect the men's basketball program as well as hitting comment sections on articles, twitter and other social media. The "see , we told you nothing happened" in the hopes that its taken as gospel and people don't dig into the weeds of the report and addendums.
The work being done here to dissect the NOA, Dan Kane continuing his reporting and what I suspect are similar efforts at Pack Pride among other entities and interested parties is important because it educates the readers and thus reduces UNC's ability to partner with the NCAA in walking away with a slap on the wrist. It may seem like its just some message board fans talking but its serves a bigger purpose.
I wouldn't be surprised to see a Bobby_G variation floating around on multiple sites trying to marginalize any discussion on the depth and scope of UNC cheating in an effort to protect the men's basketball program as well as hitting comment sections on articles, twitter and other social media. The "see , we told you nothing happened" in the hopes that its taken as gospel and people don't dig into the weeds of the report and addendums.
Preacher, there very well could be restrictions, but it sure didn't apply to student-athletes. That is where the crux of all this should be exposed, along with Jon Scott pointing out FI248/FI249:
FI248: January 5, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcripts. This includes, but is not limited to, all student-athletes from the 2000-01 academic year through the 2010-11 academic year who passed more than 12 hours of courses within the AFRI/AFAM department.
(Item9_StudentAthleteTranscripts_010515_NorthCarolina_00231)
FI249: February 4, 2015 – Student-athlete academic transcript evaluation. This includes, but is not limited to, a spreadsheet demonstrating student athletes who enrolled in more than 12 hours of independent study and anomalous courses.
(AcademicTranscriptEvaluation_020415_NorthCarolina_00231)
Now, will the NCAA simply just wipe out all the AFAM classes to see where these 'student-athletes' stood as students? I doubt it, but that's the only logical thing to do here.
Is it possible that there is such a stain of serious proportions, that the NCAA is trying to minimize the impact to the revenue producing programs?
Still waiting on the ACC board to take a stand..........
You'd have thought if Bobbi was a part of any organized effort to marginalize the academic atrocities committed at UNC, they could have mustered a better representative. I've seen a six year old kid present a better argument that their daddy could beat up both King Kong and Godzilla in a fist fight. His key talking point was read this and if you don't agree, read it again. Wash, rinse, repeat. Eventually, it became clear that he hadn't read much of anything as JP Scott rubbed his nose in a variety of smelly documentation more than once. I put the guy on ignore as I thought I was arguing with a child or someone that lacked the mental competence to recognize he was playing the fool.
I do agree with your premise that the NOA was worded to provide the NCAA a lot of latitude in passing judgment and ultimately, punishment. I also think the SACS report took out a lot of the NCAAs wiggle room. I'm guessing the NCAA wishes they had made their ruling quicker and in advance of the SACS thrashing of UNC. Given the SACS report, I also wonder if the easy way out for the NCAA is to harshly penalize UNC right up to the point of avoiding any budgetary impacts. I'm still a bit shocked that we haven't seen a proposal for self-imposed penalty by UNC. However, I've not heard even the hint of that path. It would give both UNC and the NCAA the ethical high road to "recovery".
Still, it seems UNC is hell bent following the North Carolina way. And now we all know what way that is.
It is now basically confirmed that bobby is Bradley Bethel. If you want to get a good laugh go to Bethel's blog. He tries to argue that the scandal was driven by academics and not athletics. What he never addresses is why Crowder, who is a basketball booster, did it.
At the core of Bethel's case is blatant racism against blacks whom he obviously believes (and thinks Crowder believes) are completely unable to do college work. So, taking Bethel's contention to the logical conclusion, Crowder gave black students an easy way out of taking Swahili or any other language class, a way out of lecture classes and a way to get college credit and a degree doing virtually no work.
black special interest organizations have failed to get involved in this crisis. So many needful ways for them to voice their displeasure and objection. How dare the university of north carolina do these things.
Bradley had better get busy and finish his UNC-CHeat propaganda documentary. Those idiots who funded his little project are anxiously awaiting it's release.
Since Jon Scott has destroyed his entire script, he'll need to spin up some new hogwash. Regardless, within a week of release, Pack Pride will have it completely debunked on YouTube.
Since Jon Scott has destroyed his entire script, he'll need to spin up some new hogwash. Regardless, within a week of release, Pack Pride will have it completely debunked on YouTube.
So, if the NCAA brings the hammer, which one will it be...
This one>>> http://asrentall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sledge-hammer.jpg
Or this one>>> http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v1/222566992/Hammer_toys_sledge_hammer_toys_plastic_hammer.jpg
This one>>> http://asrentall.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/sledge-hammer.jpg
Or this one>>> http://i00.i.aliimg.com/photo/v1/222566992/Hammer_toys_sledge_hammer_toys_plastic_hammer.jpg
Just finished reading Tarnished Heels . One point made was the amount this continuing fraud made for the university in royalties (25 million in one year) donations , research grants , ticket sales, etc.
Frankly if you add it all up a 250 million fine would still be light in view the of the time this scam ran and what it meant to the university in dollar terms
Bradley Bethel tweeted that he was going to be "busy" and wouldn't be responding to the N&O article for a week or so. Elmo disappeared at the same time. Kinda obvious that Elmo is Bradley. But, I think most of us already knew that with the style, poor thinking skills and cheap shots at Jay Smith who has chosen to take the high road.
Tickle me Elmo hasn't posted on this page of this thread. (Yet...) That is in itself telling as to the direction of this "sitiation"
Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of that about TME but I don't get too deep into many of these type discussion other than to offer some surface observations. (Gotta still make a living. I post here mostly for a break and the enjoyment to interact with other Cat fans.) Be Good and thanks again...
Thanks for the information. I wasn't aware of that about TME but I don't get too deep into many of these type discussion other than to offer some surface observations. (Gotta still make a living. I post here mostly for a break and the enjoyment to interact with other Cat fans.) Be Good and thanks again...
For those who haven't seen it, below is the most recent Dan Kane article, talking about UNC's penchant for redacting information, in particular info about the basketball team. It also delves into the Dean Smith / Bill Guthridge / Matt Doherty years where the cheating was alive and well.
Dan Kane article: UNC Documents, redactions shield innocuous information
At some point UNC fans may realize that these stories will never end. At this rate, give the sheer magnitude of this scandal and given the way UNC has fought it tooth and nail every step of the way, information will be coming out for years and years (and that's true regardless of what the NCAA decides to do).
BTW, reading the comments section it looks like they have their own Bobby. The UNC defense fund must assign an idiot to every UNC discussion on the internet. Makes for a few good laughs I must say.
Dan Kane article: UNC Documents, redactions shield innocuous information
At some point UNC fans may realize that these stories will never end. At this rate, give the sheer magnitude of this scandal and given the way UNC has fought it tooth and nail every step of the way, information will be coming out for years and years (and that's true regardless of what the NCAA decides to do).
BTW, reading the comments section it looks like they have their own Bobby. The UNC defense fund must assign an idiot to every UNC discussion on the internet. Makes for a few good laughs I must say.
UNC is positioning this as a problem with the women's BB team. This after initially pawning it off as a problem with the football team. Once the NCAA hands down punishment, UNC will have their lackeys at ESPN spinning full time that this was primarily a problem with the women's program and that will be where they bear the brunt of the punishment. That's how they see it.
The NCAA has shown zero interest in meaningfully addressing what has went on at UNC and Emmert has carried water for them at every opportunity. Anyone that expects banners to come down is going to be sadly disappointed, IMO.
The banners are the key. If the holes keep them then their cheating worked.
The NCAA has shown zero interest in meaningfully addressing what has went on at UNC and Emmert has carried water for them at every opportunity. Anyone that expects banners to come down is going to be sadly disappointed, IMO.
The banners are the key. If the holes keep them then their cheating worked.
Not Bethel, and JP Scot is wrong with his interpretation of the 12-hour rule. The facts are out there people read them, the NCAA has and will use them in their ruling later.
By all means believe JP, but don't be mad when it doesn't turn out like you think it should. He has a way of twisting around and spinning his arguments, and introducing incomplete and misleading information. I guess you'll see soon enough.
By all means believe JP, but don't be mad when it doesn't turn out like you think it should. He has a way of twisting around and spinning his arguments, and introducing incomplete and misleading information. I guess you'll see soon enough.
Bobby, you claimed that the 12-hour rule wasn't relevant until 2012. You seem to have forgotten to explain that discrepancy, or do you still stand behind that? Also you never answered why Crowder took steps to mischaracterize the classes (as early as the late 90's) if you believe they weren't an issue.
what - effing - ever . . . if your intention was to visit Rafters tonight and set a new standard for pot calling the kettle black then you get superb marks for technique, but a big FAIL for target selection by using the most credible poster on this site and probably throughout the entire Rivals network.
I hope you were drunk when you made that post, and on some cheap bottom shelf sugar-rush garbage wine. I'd like to think the only people in your state drinking our excellent bourbon are NC State fans.
Yes, I claimed departments operated on their own set of rules regarding the independent study limit until UNC response to SACS in 2012. It was not until then that the university addressed this inconsistency. This is clearly spelled out in their response. I'm not introducing any new ideas, just presenting the facts, without a UK-fan/NC State-fan/Dan Kane pipe dream or spin.
What response did Crowder herself give?
Litigating the matter on a message board is pointless. The game is all about perception right now. If UNC can continue to win the media war with the expectations game then look for the NCAA to oblige with a lot of sound and fury but short on substance. A year after the sanctions are handed down UNC will be right back to having all their talking heads ramble on about "The Carolina Way" because they are shameless.
More national coverage from mainstream media is needed. They need to make it clear people are watching and the punishment must fit the crimes. As I said before, the bottom line is banners. If they stay up then there is no enduring mark against the heels. It is absolutely critical that at least one, better if it was two, and they deserve 3 to come down. Otherwise they got away as good as they possibly could have in light of the incredible about of cheating that was exposed. Beyond comprehension, almost.
More national coverage from mainstream media is needed. They need to make it clear people are watching and the punishment must fit the crimes. As I said before, the bottom line is banners. If they stay up then there is no enduring mark against the heels. It is absolutely critical that at least one, better if it was two, and they deserve 3 to come down. Otherwise they got away as good as they possibly could have in light of the incredible about of cheating that was exposed. Beyond comprehension, almost.
For the return of Bradley, I post a quote from Jay Smith:
"So I have decided not to answer insult with insult. I will trust that my record of integrity speaks for itself. I will, however, make one last (and mercifully brief) effort at peacemaking. After all, one of the great mysteries of Bradley Bethel’s fierce hostility to me and to Mary Willingham is that…it really shouldn’t be this way at all. Bethel knows that on the big issues Mary Willingham is absolutely right. He has conceded that UNC has admitted badly underprepared athletes in the past; he concedes that the paper class system was perpetuated at least in part to help those athletes; he wrote Chancellor Folt eight months ago to complain that “there have been many student-athletes who were specially admitted [at UNC] whose academic preparedness is so low they cannot succeed here.” Both he and Willingham have passionately insisted that all athletes can and should be properly educated and that the University too often falls down on the job. On the fundamentals, in short, there is a broad swath of agreement."
http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-starting-bradley-bethel/
"So I have decided not to answer insult with insult. I will trust that my record of integrity speaks for itself. I will, however, make one last (and mercifully brief) effort at peacemaking. After all, one of the great mysteries of Bradley Bethel’s fierce hostility to me and to Mary Willingham is that…it really shouldn’t be this way at all. Bethel knows that on the big issues Mary Willingham is absolutely right. He has conceded that UNC has admitted badly underprepared athletes in the past; he concedes that the paper class system was perpetuated at least in part to help those athletes; he wrote Chancellor Folt eight months ago to complain that “there have been many student-athletes who were specially admitted [at UNC] whose academic preparedness is so low they cannot succeed here.” Both he and Willingham have passionately insisted that all athletes can and should be properly educated and that the University too often falls down on the job. On the fundamentals, in short, there is a broad swath of agreement."
http://paperclassinc.com/jay-smith-starting-bradley-bethel/
I don't know how important this 12hr issue is, but I found this over on Pack Pride
- Jay Smith @jaysmith711 2h 2 hours ago
Roy extended but Sylvia prepped for the chopping block? Deal with this fact: the 2005 men's team took well over 100 paper classes. WELL OVER
1 retweet1 favorite
Reply
Retweet 1
Favorite 1
More 
Jay Smith @jaysmith711 2h 2 hours ago
@jaysmith711 Players from 2005 men's BB team continued taking paper classes after championship year. Roy gets rewarded for...what?
I guess that's one way to look at it. AFAM wasn't following the rules prior to 2012 so you want to claim that they weren't required to follow the rules. Sounds convenient but if that's what UNC is hanging their hat on, that's incredible lame, and an extremely weak argument. If anything it's an admission that anything prior to 2012 can be considered ripe for investigation of fraud, since obviously no one at UNC was paying attention to what was going on, and if they did they obviously shirked their duty and were complicit in the fraud.
The rules were in the undergraduate bulletin, which presumably applies to undergraduates regardless of which school they are in (and especially if they haven't yet declared a major which generally doesn't happen at UNC until their junior year.)
FWIW, as I said I don't claim to know all the details of any of this (believe it or not, it's not me or PackPride who needs to prove anything, it's UNC that's being judged here.) I'm just asking the questions based on my limited perusing of the exhibits that were in the NOA supplements where it pretty clearly notes that there's a 12-hour limit for independent studies.
It's also pretty clear that IF UNC wanted to label this classes as 'correspondence classes' (which they clearly weren't since these players were on campus at the time), then that might provide relief from the 12-hour rule in theory but correspondence classes also includes additional requirements, which it's not clear that UNC can prove were upheld (for example getting the written approval of a Dean etc.) [And even if they could prove it, it's another can of worms because it suggests that the Deans were complicit in the fraud.]
But back to your response, you act like it's required of me to prosecute UNC. It's not. I've just asked some questions, which you have struggled to date to answer directly BTW.
BTW, I would have thought that after your week-long hiatus that when you returned you might be able to provide a more coherent response (maybe after consulting with someone who can actually present an intelligent argument) but we're back into the same tired old responses from you [1.) refer to some argument which you don't provide any details about (example above regarding UNC and SACS) 2.) focus on minor details without seeing or acknowledging the big picture 3.) purposely misread people's comments and ask inane questions (example: the above "what response did Crowder herself give) and on and on and on.]
Shame on you. And absolutely not. Were it not for the availability of precisely these public forums (RR and PP) then nowhere else would the extent of unc's corruptions have been revealed (originally and continually since), and available for public knowledge. Aside from a few published works (one book and Dan Kane et al) and then FINALLY the Wainstein investigation, what else would there have been than the "litigation on a message board." What assurance can you offer than the Wainstein investigation would EVER have occurred had it not been for the public excitement created by a message board service, particularly Pack Pride?
Agree with everything else you wrote about media pressure, banners, etc.
