UNCheat Gets Probation from Its Accrediting Agency

[kybassfan]

Oh, that's gonna leave a bruise.

I was struck by two things in the article.

First, that this is a rare occurrence for a major college. Following is the specific phrase from the article: "It’s unusual for a major U.S. research university to be sanctioned by an accrediting body."

Second, that its the second highest (lowest) penalty that SACS issues. The only step remaining would have been for SACS to have removed UNC from SACS membership.

The report was sufficiently devastating that Folt felt the need to reassure students that federal funding and scholarships would remain in force. That's just huge!! The article also mentioned that the UNC case was singular in SACS experience. My interpretation of that? WORST EVER for a major college!

I find this incredible. This discussion has moved beyond the eligibility of individual athletes. UNC narrowly missed being eligible to continue as an accredited university. How do you save face in light of such shame? What actions can UNC take to restore any perception of honor or credibility in their academics or athletics, as it is clear the athletic department was exploiting these shortcomings.

To a degree, they've embarrassed us all. I expected and hoped SACS would publicly acknowledge this debacle. I never expected this.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

So, even though it sounds like an anemic "penalty", it turns out that it just may be the death nell. How can the NCAA possibly not bring the hammer down hard? If they don't, no university could or should accept any subsequent penalties.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

It really is a rare distinction to be placed on a year's probation by the SACS. UNC-CHeats should consider hanging a banner. Almost all the other schools on probation are struggling institutions facing financial difficulties. The Tarheels are the ONLY one I could find that made the dishonor role for massive cheating.

Here are some of the schools they are joining in the Hall of Shame:
* Art Institute of Atlanta
* Emmanuel Christian Seminary
* Miami International University of Art and Design
* Art Institute of Houston
* South University
* Bethel Bible College
* University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

It's not really fair to lump these other schools in with the outlaws of UNC-CHeats. Most of them are just 'for-profit' schools that hit the financial skids. They are maligned by an association with a school that spent decades aggressively cheating.

So, really they have the distinction of being the only major university, to get this result.

 

[GOING FOR #9]

At a meeting in Portsmouth, Virginia, the group determined that UNC failed to comply with seven key operating principals for member universities, among them: integrity, program content, control of intercollegiate athletics and academic support services. The practical effect of the sanction is that "they just have to send us more documentation to show their compliance with seven of these principals," commission President Belle Wheelan said.

If the NCAA doesn't pound their athletics into dust I would say UNC doesn't get off the probation. They directly implicate the LOIC in athletics in this scandal and I would say if NCAA doesn't do their job they will lose all credibility with every accreditation governing body in the US rendering the NCAA useless.

 

[kybassfan]

UNC now joins great academic schools like SC State in standing!

Probation
– Failure to correct deficiencies or failure to make satisfactory progress toward compliance with
the
Principles of Accreditation, whether or not the institution is already on Warning, may result in the
institution being placed on Probation. An institution may be placed on Probation for the same reasons as
discussed above regarding Warning if the Commission’s Board of Trustees deems noncompliance with the
Principles to be serious enough to merit invoking Probation whether or not the institution is or has been on
Warning. Probation is a more serious sanction than Warning and is usually, but not necessarily, invoked as
the last step before an institution is removed from membership. Probation may be imposed upon initial
institutional review, depending on the judgment of the Board regarding the seriousness of noncompliance or
in the case of repeated violations recognized by the Board over a period of time. An institution must be
placed on Probation when it is continued in membership for Good Cause beyond the maximum two-year
monitoring period (see section on “Good Cause” below). The maximum consecutive time that an institution
may be on Probation is two years.

Preacher, as I interpret that, the clock is now ticking on UNC. If they do not resolve the many issues and return to good standing within 2 years, they lose their membership with SACS. In essence, their accreditation is gone university wide. While SACS can extend probation, they cannot do so beyond 2 years.

I'm not familiar with North Carolina politics, but I'm guessing heads start rolling in the university and related branches of state government? Will they open similar inquiries into other state colleges? Not meaning to give you the fifth degree, but I've just never seen anything of this magnitude. Seems to me that the implications are further reaching than just UNC now. I know in Alabama, anytime there have been accreditation problems even within a department within a state university, mushrooms clouds start appearing in Montgomery.

 

[Aligned_for_9]

SACS used the term "academic fraud."

 

[Aligned_for_9]

SACS also hit on financial aid issues. For some time, there has been a rumor of Pell grant fraud for athletes. Chew on that....

 

[preacherfan]

Preacher, as I interpret that, the clock is now ticking on UNC. If they do not resolve the many issues and return to good standing within 2 years, they lose their membership with SACS. In essence, their accreditation is gone university wide. While SACS can extend probation, they cannot do so beyond 2 years.

I'm not familiar with North Carolina politics, but I'm guessing heads start rolling in the university and related branches of state government? Will they open similar inquiries into other state colleges? Not meaning to give you the fifth degree, but I've just never seen anything of this magnitude. Seems to me that the implications are further reaching than just UNC now. I know in Alabama, anytime there have been accreditation problems even within a department within a state university, mushrooms clouds start appearing in Montgomery.

KBF, you seem to have a good handle on the situation. SACS just handed Jay Smith and like-minded profs and administrators a loaded gun and said, "Have fun!"

Plus, those on the fence have to now know that if the cheating simply gets moved to other departments and that info gets into the public domain, SACS will respond. There is no joy at UNC right now except for those who don't care about academics. They fear a repeat of the scandal and SACS responding.

For a public ivy to be on academic probation for cheating and lack of integrity is no small matter. Anyone who thinks otherwise is clueless. Stay tuned. We are going to see some mushroom clouds and hear some gunshots.

 

[CUJO_1970]

• So, UNC-CHeats is precisely one step from what amounts to an academic death penalty the likes of which would make what happened at SMU look like a gentle tap on the wrist? Yes, I'm sure the faculty and admin are positively delighted about this.

 

[ukcatsfan2]

No member from a North Carolina school can hear or vote on the case

Sounds like UNCCheat not only voted on the case but accessed some lame ass penalty...

SACS - Sucks Ass @ Carolina Schools

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

No member from a North Carolina school can hear or vote on the case

Sounds like UNCCheat not only voted on the case but accessed some lame ass penalty...

SACS - Sucks Ass @ Carolina Schools

Did you read anything beyond the word probation? This was the worst they could get besides an outright loss of accreditation, which was never going to happen without a probation first. It's worse than it sounds at first glance.

 

[preacherfan]

From the WSJ:

"The accrediting group, whose board met this week in Virginia to discuss the accreditation status of a number of schools, found that UNC was still in violation of seven standards, including ones regarding academic integrity, academic support services, faculty role in governance and oversight of intercollegiate athletics, in the wake of the scandal. UNC had asked the group via a 220-plus-page report in January to find it in compliance with accreditation standards, despite an investigation last fall by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein that lay blame mainly on two administrators and cited others for their silence regarding the fake classes."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/unc-chapel-hill-put-on-yearlong-probation-by-accreditor-1434047690

 

[Lumpy 2]

SACS knew before they made their ruling that the NCAA had characterized the cheating as impermissible benefits and by their statement labeling it as academic fraud, SACS has placed the burden back on the NCAA. They were probably hoping that term was never used in the SACS ruling and they will have a hard time explaining why they didn't have enough proof to charge UNC with academic fraud. They had the same evidence available to them that SACS had but decided to only charge UNC with providing impermissible benefits.

 

[kybassfan]

From the WSJ:

"The accrediting group, whose board met this week in Virginia to discuss the accreditation status of a number of schools, found that UNC was still in violation of seven standards, including ones regarding academic integrity, academic support services, faculty role in governance and oversight of intercollegiate athletics, in the wake of the scandal. UNC had asked the group via a 220-plus-page report in January to find it in compliance with accreditation standards, despite an investigation last fall by former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein that lay blame mainly on two administrators and cited others for their silence regarding the fake classes."

http://www.wsj.com/articles/unc-chapel-hill-put-on-yearlong-probation-by-accreditor-1434047690

Makes me wonder just when that 24 month clock actually started.

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

SACS knew before they made their ruling that the NCAA had characterized the cheating as impermissible benefits and by their statement labeling it as academic fraud, SACS has placed the burden back on the NCAA. They were probably hoping that term was never used in the SACS ruling and they will have a hard time explaining why they didn't have enough proof to charge UNC with academic fraud. They had the same evidence available to them that SACS had but decided to only charge UNC with providing impermissible benefits.

My thought was that if they went the academic fraud route, UNCheat would contest that they didn't have the authority or jurisdiction or whatever. Framing as impermissible benefits fall into their purview though.

 

[jameslee32]

UNCheat Gets Probation from Its Accrediting Agency

To Skate (verb): The 2015 result of fraud in education.

 

[KMKAT]

I still have this issue with the ACC conference in that they have done nothing but turn their head on this cheating.
A long time ago, the ACC was formed to create a balance between athletics and academics. The standard was that every student-athlete had to score a 800 to enter an ACC school. When South Carolina left the conference, it was due to the fact they couldn't get enough athletes to keep up with the 'ACC' standard.
Georgia Tech replaced South Carolina, the ACC dropped that 800 standard because they said they couldn't compete, and the ability to create fake grades and classes was born.
The ACC brought this upon themselves dropping that standard, and they have proven they're not credible enough (Commissioner Swofford) to uphold standards that were to put them above the rest of college athletics.

As we all now know, it has been a coverup by everyone who has ties to UNC with the exception of 4 people:
Jay Smith, Willingham, McCants and Wainstein.

 

[NC Weasel]

SACS did all they could or were EVER going to do at a State Ivy.

They also essentially gave UNC NOTHING to shove in the NCAA's face and say "nothing to see here, move along".

By citing BOTH Athletic & Academic malfeasance in their ruling, SACS is confirming YES, THIS HAPPENED. Now it's up to the NCAA to decide:

1. Do we penalize going back word? (Vacate games/titles, etc.)
2. Penalize going forward? (Probation, post season bans, show cause bans)
3. How do we fairly combine the two?

One penalizes players not involved, but hurts future revenue. The other stings reputation, but it truth has almost no teeth.

 

[KopiKat]

So, SACS can't yank accreditation? You're not presenting out-of-context (miss)information right?

Probation is sanction. Revocation of accreditation is disassociation. It's easy to tell who has never read a legitimate work of literature.

 

[JPScott]

My thought was that if they went the academic fraud route, UNCheat would contest that they didn't have the authority or jurisdiction or whatever. Framing as impermissible benefits fall into their purview though.

Exactly. The NCAA charging impermissible benefits is a much stronger case for them to prosecute than if they charged academic fraud. It's a lower burden of proof for the NCAA and more difficult for UNC to dispute, and as you say an area that falls more in line with the NCAA's normal realm of jurisdiction.

Also as I mentioned elsewhere, the impermissible benefits strategy opens up the potential pool of players who benefitted, and thus are at risk of facing punishment than otherwise if it was based strictly on academic ineligibility due to fraud.

 

[UKvisitor]

So, even though it sounds like an anemic "penalty", it turns out that it just may be the death nell. How can the NCAA possibly not bring the hammer down hard? If they don't, no university could or should accept any subsequent penalties.

Agree about the death knell. From the op article linked:

The only step more severe than imposing probation would be for SACS to revoke a university’s accreditation. That rarely happens, and because it means a loss of eligibility for federal funds, it typically ends with a college shutting down.

This probation by SACS is more SERIOUS than it sounds.

 

[Lumpy 2]

Exactly. The NCAA charging impermissible benefits is a much stronger case for them to prosecute than if they charged academic fraud. It's a lower burden of proof for the NCAA and more difficult for UNC to dispute, and as you say an area that falls more in line with the NCAA's normal realm of jurisdiction.

Also as I mentioned elsewhere, the impermissible benefits strategy opens up the potential pool of players who benefitted, and thus are at risk of facing punishment than otherwise if it was based strictly on academic ineligibility due to fraud.

You might be right but I don't know how much evidence the NCAA would need to characterize it as academic fraud. They have proof that UNC labeled classes as lecture classes but allowed athletes to be awarded grades without attending class and only writing a single paper. They also have proof that many of those papers were plagiarized and that instructors' signatures were forged for some of those classes. In their first ruling, SACS ordered UNC to offer legitimate classes to anyone who was affected by the phony classes and now they have labeled the cheating as academic fraud. i don't know how much more proof the NCAA would need.

If they had charged UNC with academic fraud I doubt that they would have had much trouble proving players were ineligible for almost every one of the 18 years the scandal lasted. By labeling the cheating as impermissible benefits they will have more leeway when assessing punishment.

 

[docholiday51]

If what UNC blatantly did for decades warrants probation , what in the hell would a school have to do for their membership to be removed ? Mail diplomas to people that have never set foot in North Carolina ?

I requested one but they said it was on back order and would take about 6 weeks to get,Phd's might take a little longer but were on higher quality paper

 

[Federal Cat]

But, but, but, they are innocent. Just ask BobbyG.

I'm sure he'll chime in with his take on this

 

[JPScott]

You are obviously clueless about this situation if you think that LOIC and "probation" are even remotely close to the worst that can come out of this for UNC. LOIC and probation are exactly what UNC wants. Those are vague terms that are just juicy and might "sound" bad, but in reality, they don't impose any specific punishments.

I've pulled this out previously and I'm sure will pull it out many times leading up to the COI's findings. But below are the typical penalties for major violations as described by he 2012-13 NCAA manual (which apparently is the standard that UNC will be judged).

For those who don't know Lack of Institutional Control (LOIC) is not only considered the highest infraction (Level 1) but is the worst a school can be charged with. While the exact punishment for LOIC is not the same in every case, the list of potential punishments are all pretty significant. (and especially in the case of willful breaking of rules, academic fraud, extended time period of cheating etc., all of which UNC is guilty of.)

from the 2012-13 NCAA Manual:

19.5.2 Penalties for Major Violations. Penalties for a major violation shall be significantly more severe than those for a secondary violation and shall be consistent with the penalty structure and guidelines used by other regulatory committees (e.g., Division I Committee on Academic Performance). The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties: (Revised: 4/28/11 for any institution that receives a notice of inquiry after 4/28/11)

(a) Public reprimand and censure.

(b) Probationary period for up to five years (including a periodic in-person monitoring system, written institutional reports, and institutional affirmation that current athletics policies and procedures conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations).

(c) Suspension of institutional staff members from their duties for a specified period if such staff members are determined by the Committee on Infractions to have engaged in or condoned a major violation.

(d) Reduction in the number of financial aid awards (as defined in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) that may be awarded during a specified period.

(e) Reduction in the number of expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport.

(f ) Prohibition against, or limits on, recruiting activities by some or all coaching staff members in an involved sport.

(g) Prohibition against specified competition in the sport (including, but not limited to, postseason competition, invitational tournaments and exempt contests or dates of competition, such as foreign tours or contests in Alaska or Hawaii), particularly in cases in which:

(1) An involved individual remains employed at the institution;
(2) A significant competitive advantage resulted from the violation;
(3) The violation reflects a lack of institutional control, failure to monitor a program, or a violation of the cooperative principle set forth in Bylaw 32.1.4;
(4) The violation includes findings of academic fraud; or
(5) The institution is a repeat violator (as defined in Bylaw 19.5.2.1).​

(h) Vacation of a record in a case in which a student-athlete has competed while ineligible, particularly in a case involving academic fraud, serious intentional violations, direct involvement of a coach or a high-ranking school administrator, a large number of violations, competition while academically ineligible, a finding of failure to monitor or lack of institutional control, a repeat violator, or a case in which vacation or a similar penalty would be imposed if the underlying violations were secondary. The penalties may include one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;
(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or
(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.​

(i) Financial penalty.

(j) Prohibition against television appearances of the institution in the sport in which the violation occurred.

(k) Requirement that an institution that has been found in violation, or that has an athletics department staff member who has been found in violation of the provisions of NCAA legislation while representing another institution, show cause why a penalty or additional penalty should not be imposed, if, in the opinion of the Committee on Infractions, the institution has not taken appropriate disciplinary or corrective action against athletics department personnel involved in the infractions case or any other institutional employee, if the circumstances warrant, or a representative of the institution’s athletics interests.

(1) The penalty imposed under this provision may include a recommendation to the membership that the institution’s membership in the Association be suspended or terminated.
(2) “Appropriate disciplinary or corrective action” may include severance of relations with any representative of the institution’s athletics interests who may be involved; the debarment of the head coach or any assistant coach involved in the infraction from coaching, recruiting, or speaking engagements; and the
prohibition of all recruiting in a specified sport for a specified period. The nature and extent of such action shall be determined by the institution, but the determination of whether the action is appropriate in the fulfillment of NCAA policies and principles, and its resulting effect on any institutional penalty, shall be solely that of the Committee on Infractions (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2).
(3) In the event the Committee on Infractions imposes additional penalties upon an institution, the institution shall be provided the opportunity to appear before the committee; further, the institution shall be provided the opportunity to appeal (per Bylaw 19.6.2) any additional penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions.​

(l) Other penalties as appropriate.​

 

[UKvisitor]

(l) Other penalties as appropriate.

I said it in the beginning: UNC to div III

 

[1 for the Blue]

...from Reuters news:
Folt, UNC chancellor noted:

"All great institutions encounter challenges at one time or another," she wrote to the university community. "Recent years prove that Carolina is no exception."

..translation: this fraud is only recent, (recent? are you serious) and besides,
other great (did cheating make UNC "great") institutions cheat as well.

 

[JPScott]

You might be right but I don't know how much evidence the NCAA would need to characterize it as academic fraud. They have proof that UNC labeled classes as lecture classes but allowed athletes to be awarded grades without attending class and only writing a single paper. They also have proof that many of those papers were plagiarized and that instructors' signatures were forged for some of those classes. In their first ruling, SACS ordered UNC to offer legitimate classes to anyone who was affected by the phony classes and now they have labeled the cheating as academic fraud. i don't know how much more proof the NCAA would need.

If they had charged UNC with academic fraud I doubt that they would have had much trouble proving players were ineligible for almost every one of the 18 years the scandal lasted. By labeling the cheating as impermissible benefits they will have more leeway when assessing punishment.

You're certainly correct that there's ample proof of widespread and institutionalized cheating and fraud at UNC. If one steps back and looks at the scandal in its entirety, UNC is guilty as sin and deserves to be hammered.

But connecting the cheating to specific punishments by claiming a particular player is ineligible etc. is IMO a much more difficult task. Clearly UNC has been banking on trying to use technicalities to slip past justice, and they've been floating out various theories to see if they gain any traction.

The reasons are as illustrated by our visitors over the past few weeks.

1.) First they'll argue that the NCAA has no jurisdiction over academics (partially true except for the fact that UNC athletic officials have to certify with the NCAA that their athletes are eligible, something they did knowing it was fraudulent, which by itself should lead UNC to be required to clean house.)
2.) Then they'll argue that the classes were certified by the school (misleading at best since it appears the only reason the classes were accepted was directly due to lax oversight on the part of the college and UNC itself has admitted the classes were not up to standards) and accredited (also misleading since SACS obviously doesn't agree these classes met standards, otherwise why would they insist that UNC provide makeups).
3.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't up to standards, they are still OK because all the students did the work that was requested (unsubstantiated that all students did work but not easily disproven either)
4.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't up to standards and it's not known the quality or amount of work done, it's still OK because they were open to all students (a claim that's often made but highly doubtful, especially since many of these aberrant classes were put together at the last minute (and therefore unlikely to have made it in the published course catalog) and some of the NOA appendices demonstrate that students couldn't get into the classes without personal approval from Debbie Crowder.)
5.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't open to everyone, there were non-athletes who took the classes as well so it wasn't strictly for athletes, and thus not a benefit (not relevant because it's not absolutely necessary that a benefit ONLY be applied to athletes for it to be a violation. Beyond that to this day NO ONE has adequately defined exactly what a 'non-athlete' is considered to be in recent reports. For example in earlier reports a varsity player who exhausted his eligibility was characterized as a 'non-athlete'. Most likely most of these 'non-athletes' were in some way connected to athletics.)
6.) Then they'll argue that even if the players received these bogus grades, that it didn't necessarily turn them from being ineligible to eligible. For example saying that if they were in their final semester and not returning the following year, that they didn't NEED to take any classes etc. Or arguing that without the bogus classes, they might have taken another course and got a similar grade etc.​

and on and on and on.

Again that seems to be UNC's strategy, at least up to receiving the NOA.

Now that the NOA has really side-stepped the charge of academic ineligibility, but rather goes simply to impermissible benefits, it changes the situation IMO, both in terms of what the NCAA needs to show and how UNC tries to defend itself.

I think it's a much simpler and straightforward question to ask whether UNC athletes received impermissible benefits. The answer to that is clearly they did, in the form of not having to spend time on an actual course-load at the very least, but in some cases it allowed them to remain eligible as well. How is UNC going to rebut that? The Wainstein report already demonstrated that Nyang'oro and Crowder were knee deep in providing benefits to athletes.

FWIW, I also think that in this case, UNC should be hammered harder than other cases where athletes received impermissible benefits from outside sources (such as agents, loan companies etc.) because in this case, it was UNC itself who was providing the impermissible benefit!

Beyond that, I would argue that UNC awarded themselves a huge benefit as well, by being able to field competitive (and in some cases national championship caliber) teams, all the while cheating their athletes out of a legitimate education.

 

[Lumpy 2]

You're certainly correct that there's ample proof of widespread and institutionalized cheating and fraud at UNC. If one steps back and looks at the scandal in its entirety, UNC is guilty as sin and deserves to be hammered.

But connecting the cheating to specific punishments by claiming a particular player is ineligible etc. is IMO a much more difficult task. Clearly UNC has been banking on trying to use technicalities to slip past justice, and they've been floating out various theories to see if they gain any traction.

The reasons are as illustrated by our visitors over the past few weeks.

1.) First they'll argue that the NCAA has no jurisdiction over academics (partially true except for the fact that UNC athletic officials have to certify with the NCAA that their athletes are eligible, something they did knowing it was fraudulent, which by itself should lead UNC to be required to clean house.)
2.) Then they'll argue that the classes were certified by the school (misleading at best since it appears the only reason the classes were accepted was directly due to lax oversight on the part of the college and UNC itself has admitted the classes were not up to standards) and accredited (also misleading since SACS obviously doesn't agree these classes met standards, otherwise why would they insist that UNC provide makeups).
3.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't up to standards, they are still OK because all the students did the work that was requested (unsubstantiated that all students did work but not easily disproven either)
4.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't up to standards and it's not known the quality or amount of work done, it's still OK because they were open to all students (a claim that's often made but highly doubtful, especially since many of these aberrant classes were put together at the last minute (and therefore unlikely to have made it in the published course catalog) and some of the NOA appendices demonstrate that students couldn't get into the classes without personal approval from Debbie Crowder.)
5.) Then they'll argue that even if the classes weren't open to everyone, there were non-athletes who took the classes as well so it wasn't strictly for athletes, and thus not a benefit (not relevant because it's not absolutely necessary that a benefit ONLY be applied to athletes for it to be a violation. Beyond that to this day NO ONE has adequately defined exactly what a 'non-athlete' is considered to be in recent reports. For example in earlier reports a varsity player who exhausted his eligibility was characterized as a 'non-athlete'. Most likely most of these 'non-athletes' were in some way connected to athletics.)
6.) Then they'll argue that even if the players received these bogus grades, that it didn't necessarily turn them from being ineligible to eligible. For example saying that if they were in their final semester and not returning the following year, that they didn't NEED to take any classes etc. Or arguing that without the bogus classes, they might have taken another course and got a similar grade etc.​

and on and on and on.

Again that seems to be UNC's strategy, at least up to receiving the NOA.

Now that the NOA has really side-stepped the charge of academic ineligibility, but rather goes simply to impermissible benefits, it changes the situation IMO, both in terms of what the NCAA needs to show and how UNC tries to defend itself.

I think it's a much simpler and straightforward question to ask whether UNC athletes received impermissible benefits. The answer to that is clearly they did, in the form of not having to spend time on an actual course-load at the very least, but in some cases it allowed them to remain eligible as well. How is UNC going to rebut that? The Wainstein report already demonstrated that Nyang'oro and Crowder were knee deep in providing benefits to athletes.

FWIW, I also think that in this case, UNC should be hammered harder than other cases where athletes received impermissible benefits from outside sources (such as agents, loan companies etc.) because in this case, it was UNC itself who was providing the impermissible benefit!

Beyond that, I would argue that UNC awarded themselves a huge benefit as well, by being able to field competitive (and in some cases national championship caliber) teams, all the while cheating their athletes out of a legitimate education.

I respect your opinion as much as anyone on this board and I hope you're right about why you think they decided UNC with impermissible benefits. I'm just afraid that they have realized they had no other choice but to charge UNC with violations and are now trying to minimize the punishment by charging them providing impermissible benefits instead of academic fraud. A review of the transcripts should have shown which athletes were enrolled in the bogus classes and whether or not they would have been eligible without the benefit of the grades they received in those classes.

You are the best on here at interpreting the rules and if you believe the impermissible benefits is the easier charge to prove and will allow for as much punishment that is probably the best thing to charge them with. Just hope the NCAA isn't seeing this as a way to minimize the damage to UNC.

 

[UKvisitor]

impermissible benefits includes academic fraud, right?

 

[SilentsAreGolden]

You're right Jon about how UNCheat will try anything they can to keep banners from coming down, or wins vacated. It's just amazing that it's even a question whether that will happen, when Memphis lost a whole season because ONE player MAY have cheated on ONE entrance test before he even stepped foot on their university, but a school can be shown to have cheated with scores of athletes for many years and may not suffer the same fate. I'd love to know how anyone could defend that.

 

[Bigblueforever]

Will the ACC make any ruling on University of North Carolina cheating?

 

[gollumcat]

I'm sorry, but after reading the Julius Peppers transcript, Rashard McCants interviews, Wannstein report, New Observer articles, Pack Pride, "Ole Roy's blatantly contradictory interviews, SACS probation findings , Mary Willingham, JP Scott, Bobby T-Swerve, others on this board, etc, etc, etc.....I just cannot in good faith conclude that UNC_CH is guilty of a Lack Of Institutional Control.

Instead, they are guilty of TOTAL institutional control for engineering and maintaining the longest, worst ,most widespread and blatant academic fraud case designed to keep athletes eligible and thus gain a competitive advantage in NCAA history.

The NCAA should have to create a new set of penalties for TIC(Total Institutional Control).

 

[preacherfan]

I respect your opinion as much as anyone on this board and I hope you're right about why you think they decided UNC with impermissible benefits. I'm just afraid that they have realized they had no other choice but to charge UNC with violations and are now trying to minimize the punishment by charging them providing impermissible benefits instead of academic fraud. A review of the transcripts should have shown which athletes were enrolled in the bogus classes and whether or not they would have been eligible without the benefit of the grades they received in those classes.

You are the best on here at interpreting the rules and if you believe the impermissible benefits is the easier charge to prove and will allow for as much punishment that is probably the best thing to charge them with. Just hope the NCAA isn't seeing this as a way to minimize the damage to UNC.

Lumpy, You make a LOT of sense.

But, keep in mind that the NOA, contrary to what Bobby and Nick claim, was scathing. Also, the people who are going to ultimately decide the issue are, for the most part, honest and not weasels, like Emmert. My greatest fear is that Emmert tries to steer the committee. (I have had similar experiences in the past.)

I don't think the Provost's office and Bradley Bethel would be going to the great lengths they are going if they thought they were in the clear. Bethel referred to the Provost's office as "we" in one of his writings. That was telling to me. Plus, he had info that was not public that he was sharing.

What JPS says above is very true. We are being given the UNC playbook. Nobody here is buying it. I can't see the NCAA buying it either. As skeptical as I am of the NCAA, I think UNC is going to get hit fairly hard and so does UNC. If they didn't think that, why would we have bobby on here practically 24/7? Okay, he has been somewhat MIA since SACS ruling. That too is telling.

 

[*CatinIL*]

Those plow truck drivers in North Carolina must be keeping busy having to plow all the Bull$*** flowing from Chapel Hill on to Tobacco Road...

 

[Xception]

The NCAA ruling will determine more than UNC's fate , it will determine how long this continues to branch out in other directions . If they properly punish UNC then I think it all stops there , if they give UNC a pass then you will see the government get involved with their queries on how the NCAA functions and governs . The NCAA's exempt status will be up for judgement if this is handled poorly , lawsuits from
former players will be opened up if the NCAA flippantly excuses it because they deem it academic in nature . Remember that their payment to athletes is an education , if they have no control over their payments to players then why do they have control over restrictions concerning players to begin with ? If the NCAA wants this to fully go away then they have to deservedly punish UNC for the full crime , otherwise it will go on for years longer .

 

[BurpinTurpin]

I think UNC is going to get hit fairly hard and so does UNC. If they didn't think that, why would we have bobby on here practically 24/7? Okay, he has been somewhat MIA since SACS ruling. That too is telling.

I bet he'll be back as soon as he has his new angle/spin/debating points/marching orders straight.

 

[BigBlueFanGA]

I've pulled this out previously and I'm sure will pull it out many times leading up to the COI's findings. But below are the typical penalties for major violations as described by he 2012-13 NCAA manual (which apparently is the standard that UNC will be judged).

For those who don't know Lack of Institutional Control (LOIC) is not only considered the highest infraction (Level 1) but is the worst a school can be charged with. While the exact punishment for LOIC is not the same in every case, the list of potential punishments are all pretty significant. (and especially in the case of willful breaking of rules, academic fraud, extended time period of cheating etc., all of which UNC is guilty of.)

from the 2012-13 NCAA Manual:

19.5.2 Penalties for Major Violations. Penalties for a major violation shall be significantly more severe than those for a secondary violation and shall be consistent with the penalty structure and guidelines used by other regulatory committees (e.g., Division I Committee on Academic Performance). The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties: (Revised: 4/28/11 for any institution that receives a notice of inquiry after 4/28/11)

(a) Public reprimand and censure.

(b) Probationary period for up to five years (including a periodic in-person monitoring system, written institutional reports, and institutional affirmation that current athletics policies and procedures conform to all requirements of NCAA regulations).

(c) Suspension of institutional staff members from their duties for a specified period if such staff members are determined by the Committee on Infractions to have engaged in or condoned a major violation.

(d) Reduction in the number of financial aid awards (as defined in Bylaw 15.02.4.1) that may be awarded during a specified period.

(e) Reduction in the number of expense-paid recruiting visits to the institution in the involved sport.

(f ) Prohibition against, or limits on, recruiting activities by some or all coaching staff members in an involved sport.

(g) Prohibition against specified competition in the sport (including, but not limited to, postseason competition, invitational tournaments and exempt contests or dates of competition, such as foreign tours or contests in Alaska or Hawaii), particularly in cases in which:

(1) An involved individual remains employed at the institution;
(2) A significant competitive advantage resulted from the violation;
(3) The violation reflects a lack of institutional control, failure to monitor a program, or a violation of the cooperative principle set forth in Bylaw 32.1.4;
(4) The violation includes findings of academic fraud; or
(5) The institution is a repeat violator (as defined in Bylaw 19.5.2.1).​

(h) Vacation of a record in a case in which a student-athlete has competed while ineligible, particularly in a case involving academic fraud, serious intentional violations, direct involvement of a coach or a high-ranking school administrator, a large number of violations, competition while academically ineligible, a finding of failure to monitor or lack of institutional control, a repeat violator, or a case in which vacation or a similar penalty would be imposed if the underlying violations were secondary. The penalties may include one or more of the following:

(1) Vacation of individual records and performances;
(2) Vacation of team records and performances, including wins from the career record of the head coach in the involved sport, or, in applicable cases, reconfiguration of team point totals; or
(3) Return of individual or team awards to the Association.​

(i) Financial penalty.

(j) Prohibition against television appearances of the institution in the sport in which the violation occurred.

(k) Requirement that an institution that has been found in violation, or that has an athletics department staff member who has been found in violation of the provisions of NCAA legislation while representing another institution, show cause why a penalty or additional penalty should not be imposed, if, in the opinion of the Committee on Infractions, the institution has not taken appropriate disciplinary or corrective action against athletics department personnel involved in the infractions case or any other institutional employee, if the circumstances warrant, or a representative of the institution’s athletics interests.

(1) The penalty imposed under this provision may include a recommendation to the membership that the institution’s membership in the Association be suspended or terminated.
(2) “Appropriate disciplinary or corrective action” may include severance of relations with any representative of the institution’s athletics interests who may be involved; the debarment of the head coach or any assistant coach involved in the infraction from coaching, recruiting, or speaking engagements; and the
prohibition of all recruiting in a specified sport for a specified period. The nature and extent of such action shall be determined by the institution, but the determination of whether the action is appropriate in the fulfillment of NCAA policies and principles, and its resulting effect on any institutional penalty, shall be solely that of the Committee on Infractions (or the Infractions Appeals Committee per Bylaw 19.2).
(3) In the event the Committee on Infractions imposes additional penalties upon an institution, the institution shall be provided the opportunity to appear before the committee; further, the institution shall be provided the opportunity to appeal (per Bylaw 19.6.2) any additional penalty imposed by the Committee on Infractions.​

(l) Other penalties as appropriate.​

Good Lord Almighty, reading that laundry list, most of which UNC falls into, should be making their fan base wet the bed at night. Now, on top of that, you have SACS linking academic fraud with athletics. Much like the testing agency and Rose, SACS may have just done some heavy lifting for the NCAA. Every day I feel more certain that wins are going bye-bye and at least one banner is going bye-bye and a pile of cash is going bye-bye, plus a reduction in scholarships and probation with a post season ban are coming. For GOT fans: Winter is coming.

 

[shockme76]

Bingo! If this video doesn't prove Roy's involvement in his players' academics, I don't know what would. Brings his academics guy from KU, who obviously knew how to game the system for player eligibility. And Roy coyly proclaims he stays out of his players' classroom work? I call bs. The guy's a cheater, pure and simple.

It's obvious that Roy's strategy is to deny, deny, deny in hopes that he gets away clean. You would have to be a moron to think that a head coach doesn't know anything about his players' academics. At the very least he's accountable for his staff. A university with any real integrity would have fired his ass but we all know that UNC has no integrity. They thought they could throw their football program under the bus to save their precious basketball program and get away with decades of cheating. By not firing Roy and giving him a contract extension just shows that UNC is as dirty as they come and they will do anything to save their basketball program.

 

[Xception]

Roy's denial would play better if he was the only one but not a single UNC coach has ever known what their players were doing academically . If they did know then they are guilty of helping to conceal the violations , either way all UNC coaches are guilty . That should tell you that it was known and utilized across the university in all sports that needed it .