CBS: UNC responds to NCAA allegations, argues jurisdiction in academic scandal

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
49,411
Reaction score
578
Points
113
per CBS:

The University of North Carolina released its response to the third notice of allegations -- officially, the "second amended" notice of allegations -- on Thursday, disputing the specifics of the NCAA's allegations and arguing jurisdiction in the school's academic scandal.

North Carolina's defense against the NCAA's five major allegations, which include the naming of football and men's basketball as of the most recent updated response, focuses on whether athletes where favored or steered to the selection of the many anomalous classes in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.

The school has disputed the previous findings in the school-commissioned Wainstein Report, arguing that only 29.4 percent of the students in these classes (many no-show or "paper" classes) where athletes. UNC argues that jurisdiction over the anomalous classes falls to the school's academic creditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Committee on Colleges.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"The fundamental issue in our case is that the NCAA by-laws cover athletics matters, not how academics are managed," North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said in a teleconference with reporters on Thursday. "We thoroughly address academic oversight with our accrediting agency, which is the proper governing body for academic issues.

"Our reply to each allegation is based on the NCAA's constitution and member-adopted by-laws. We expect the committee on infractions to consistently apply these by-laws as the case moves forward."

The next step in the case, which has been ongoing since 2011 when a plagiarized paper leaked online, is for the school to face the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, which is led by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. The two sides have already met once in a "procedural hearing" in October. UNC's football program was previously under NCAA investigation and received a postseason ban in 2012, among other sanctions, for impermissible agent benefits.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/unc-responds-to-ncaa-allegations-argues-jurisdiction-in-academic-scandal/

Go Gophers!!
 

Ski U Mah Gopher

Member of the Tribe
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
6,714
Reaction score
61
Points
48
per CBS:

The University of North Carolina released its response to the third notice of allegations -- officially, the "second amended" notice of allegations -- on Thursday, disputing the specifics of the NCAA's allegations and arguing jurisdiction in the school's academic scandal.

North Carolina's defense against the NCAA's five major allegations, which include the naming of football and men's basketball as of the most recent updated response, focuses on whether athletes where favored or steered to the selection of the many anomalous classes in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.

The school has disputed the previous findings in the school-commissioned Wainstein Report, arguing that only 29.4 percent of the students in these classes (many no-show or "paper" classes) where athletes. UNC argues that jurisdiction over the anomalous classes falls to the school's academic creditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Committee on Colleges.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"The fundamental issue in our case is that the NCAA by-laws cover athletics matters, not how academics are managed," North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said in a teleconference with reporters on Thursday. "We thoroughly address academic oversight with our accrediting agency, which is the proper governing body for academic issues.

"Our reply to each allegation is based on the NCAA's constitution and member-adopted by-laws. We expect the committee on infractions to consistently apply these by-laws as the case moves forward."

The next step in the case, which has been ongoing since 2011 when a plagiarized paper leaked online, is for the school to face the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, which is led by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. The two sides have already met once in a "procedural hearing" in October. UNC's football program was previously under NCAA investigation and received a postseason ban in 2012, among other sanctions, for impermissible agent benefits.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/unc-responds-to-ncaa-allegations-argues-jurisdiction-in-academic-scandal/

Go Gophers!!
The by-laws do cover it.

It is called academic eligibility. If the grades that athletes got were by means of fraud or plagiarism, then those athletes are ineligible. And any participation by ineligible athletes should result in vacation of wins and championships.
 

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
347
Reaction score
30
Points
28
The by-laws do cover it.

It is called academic eligibility. If the grades that athletes got were by means of fraud or plagiarism, then those athletes are ineligible. And any participation by ineligible athletes should result in vacation of wins and championships.
You are right, but that it is not that simple in this case. UNC is arguing that while these courses were "easy," the NCAA should not be the entity that determines whether a course is legitimate or not. They are arguing that the academic accrediting body is the one that should make the decision on that matter. In this case, the courses have been approved by the academic accrediting body. Just because a course is easy and requires very little work, does not mean it constitutes fraud or plagiarism. If the students had somebody else write their paper for them, or if they received a grade for the course but never showed up or did any work, that would be plagiarism and fraud, respectively. As far as I know, there is no evidence of that with respect to the current situation. There is no debate as to whether the athletes successfully fulfilled the requirements of these courses - they did, unequivocally. This allegation is over the legitimacy of these courses, and again, in my opinion it is not the duty of the NCAA to determine this. That falls on the academic accrediting body.

A further argument would be that the UNC athletic leadership "steered" athletes to take these courses, or that the athletes received special treatment. However, UNC alleged that there is no evidence to support either of these arguments.

In my opinion, UNC athletics will not receive significant punishment.
 

Sparlimb

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
10,034
Reaction score
137
Points
63
The by-laws do cover it.

It is called academic eligibility. If the grades that athletes got were by means of fraud or plagiarism, then those athletes are ineligible. And any participation by ineligible athletes should result in vacation of wins and championships.
And if the University had knowledge of such classes, or SHOULD have had knowledge of such classes, then they can be punished by the NCAA for lack of institutional control.
 

Holy Man

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
3,524
Reaction score
45
Points
48
You are right, but that it is not that simple in this case. UNC is arguing that while these courses were "easy," the NCAA should not be the entity that determines whether a course is legitimate or not. They are arguing that the academic accrediting body is the one that should make the decision on that matter. In this case, the courses have been approved by the academic accrediting body. Just because a course is easy and requires very little work, does not mean it constitutes fraud or plagiarism. If the students had somebody else write their paper for them, or if they received a grade for the course but never showed up or did any work, that would be plagiarism and fraud, respectively. As far as I know, there is no evidence of that with respect to the current situation. There is no debate as to whether the athletes successfully fulfilled the requirements of these courses - they did, unequivocally. This allegation is over the legitimacy of these courses, and again, in my opinion it is not the duty of the NCAA to determine this. That falls on the academic accrediting body.

A further argument would be that the UNC athletic leadership "steered" athletes to take these courses, or that the athletes received special treatment. However, UNC alleged that there is no evidence to support either of these arguments.

In my opinion, UNC athletics will not receive significant punishment.
It appears that their argument has changed. I thought they had admitted earlier that the courses were a croc and that's why many of the people in the department are no longer there. If UNC is now defending the courses, the shame factor should multiply, and if the accrediting agency overlooked them, shame on them as well.

I am with Ski U Mah. They were playing with ineligible players and therefore games should be vacated but your take is more likely to happen, further eroding the credibility of the NCAA as a governing body intended to maintain a level playing field in sports.
 

60's Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
4,668
Reaction score
97
Points
48
Penalties

Do you think that's the right thing to do?
I'm just reading some snippets here and there over time, but this jumped out at me today as a difference in other cases... 29% of the students involved were athletes. So, like with Clem, where if my memory is correct, it was exclusive to athletes. The intent or who organized the sham classes etc is a factor to me. It wouldn't appear athletics set out to cheat anyone. Some athletes were participants. That to me is very different than somebody in athletics paying illegal benefits of some kind to solely help athletes.
Let's put it this way...it's more clear to me today why it's been ongoing for 7 years.
 

Gopher Teeth

Fear the Teeth
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
564
Reaction score
6
Points
18
I'm just reading some snippets here and there over time, but this jumped out at me today as a difference in other cases... 29% of the students involved were athletes. So, like with Clem, where if my memory is correct, it was exclusive to athletes. The intent or who organized the sham classes etc is a factor to me. It wouldn't appear athletics set out to cheat anyone. Some athletes were participants. That to me is very different than somebody in athletics paying illegal benefits of some kind to solely help athletes.
Let's put it this way...it's more clear to me today why it's been ongoing for 7 years.
This is a straw man argument. Did they violate rules in which the university's accreditation is based? Sure, but they also violated the rules of athletic competition. Sham classes means they were not academically eligible which means they should not have been allowed to compete, which means they cheated. The straw man argument being presented is that this is an either or, it isn't it is an AND situation. UNC should lose their accreditation AND the athletics should be heavily punished. The NCAA should write a response that agrees with UNC saying it's an academic issue, and you will be getting a call in that regard, but it is also an athletic issue and that is what is being addressed right now.
 

balds

Active member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
2,274
Reaction score
20
Points
38
The NCAA better think carefully about this one. By doing nothing, they may be paving the way for their own extinction. Do they take on such a powerful cash cow, knowing that it will be bloody and be a decade long black eye on their "business"? Or do they gamble and cede, and risk the slim (yet quite possible) prospect of mutiny from the other 99%, and the revelation that the NCAA itself is wholly unnecessary?

The meat grinder the NCAA is in is delicious.
 

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
20,011
Reaction score
88
Points
48
The NCAA better think carefully about this one. By doing nothing, they may be paving the way for their own extinction. Do they take on such a powerful cash cow, knowing that it will be bloody and be a decade long black eye on their "business"? Or do they gamble and cede, and risk the slim (yet quite possible) prospect of mutiny from the other 99%, and the revelation that the NCAA itself is wholly unnecessary?

The meat grinder the NCAA is in is delicious.
Agreed. A brilliant, though wholly unethical defense by UNC because they know that they violated the spirit of the "law." However, the framework of the NCAA rules/eligibility system crumbles if they cede the point.

Somehow the NCAA survived the O'Bannon case. My guess is that they will work out a deal with UNC that will result in a slap on the wrist and the NCAA surviving to penalize the non blue blood schools.
 

25mkg

Member
Joined
Dec 15, 2008
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
Points
6
"only 29%"

per CBS:

The University of North Carolina released its response to the third notice of allegations -- officially, the "second amended" notice of allegations -- on Thursday, disputing the specifics of the NCAA's allegations and arguing jurisdiction in the school's academic scandal.

North Carolina's defense against the NCAA's five major allegations, which include the naming of football and men's basketball as of the most recent updated response, focuses on whether athletes where favored or steered to the selection of the many anomalous classes in the Department of African and Afro-American Studies.

The school has disputed the previous findings in the school-commissioned Wainstein Report, arguing that only 29.4 percent of the students in these classes (many no-show or "paper" classes) where athletes. UNC argues that jurisdiction over the anomalous classes falls to the school's academic creditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Committee on Colleges.

<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

"The fundamental issue in our case is that the NCAA by-laws cover athletics matters, not how academics are managed," North Carolina athletic director Bubba Cunningham said in a teleconference with reporters on Thursday. "We thoroughly address academic oversight with our accrediting agency, which is the proper governing body for academic issues.

"Our reply to each allegation is based on the NCAA's constitution and member-adopted by-laws. We expect the committee on infractions to consistently apply these by-laws as the case moves forward."

The next step in the case, which has been ongoing since 2011 when a plagiarized paper leaked online, is for the school to face the NCAA's Committee on Infractions, which is led by SEC commissioner Greg Sankey. The two sides have already met once in a "procedural hearing" in October. UNC's football program was previously under NCAA investigation and received a postseason ban in 2012, among other sanctions, for impermissible agent benefits.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-basketball/news/unc-responds-to-ncaa-allegations-argues-jurisdiction-in-academic-scandal/

Go Gophers!!
If there are about 750 student-athletes at UNC, and a student population of 29000, then student-athletes make up just 2.57% of the student body. Therefore, 29% is an unusually large number and thus points to a coordinated effort to enroll the athletes in the classes.
 

GopherinPhilly

Active member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
4,422
Reaction score
15
Points
38
Don't care about the academics...using student athletes that are not eligible means the wins are vacated...period.
 

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
347
Reaction score
30
Points
28
Don't care about the academics...using student athletes that are not eligible means the wins are vacated...period.
Well duh, I don't think anybody on this planet would dispute that. The whole reason for the investigation and debate is to determine whether the student athletes WERE eligible or not. At this time, it is a gray area whether the student athletes were eligible or not - it's hard to definitively say at this point. The reason for this is because the NCAA may be stepping into uncharted territory here, as UNC claims. People are saying these student athletes were ineligible because they took sham classes. Well, hold on there, because it matters how a "sham" class is defined and more importantly WHO decides how the sham class is defined. Does the NCAA define it, or does the academic accrediting body define it? UNC is arguing that the NCAA does not have jurisdiction to define the criteria for what constitutes a legitimate college course.
 

Winnipegopher

Wag more, bark less
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
19
Points
38
If there are about 750 student-athletes at UNC, and a student population of 29000, then student-athletes make up just 2.57% of the student body. Therefore, 29% is an unusually large number and thus points to a coordinated effort to enroll the athletes in the classes.
Plus this likely breaks down even more significantly to revenue sports.
 

WoodburyTim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
1,373
Reaction score
63
Points
48
The classes were a sham for all students, not just athletes, so there is nothing to see here.

I believe this is known as the Arizona State defense.
 

Mulligan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
3,145
Reaction score
127
Points
63
The classes were a sham for all students, not just athletes, so there is nothing to see here.

I believe this is known as the Arizona State defense.
By chance any of you GH'ers who was a student at the time, have Jan Ganglehoff write a term paper or two for you?
 

Winnipegopher

Wag more, bark less
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
19
Points
38
Personally, I want to see a breakdown to what percentage of UNC male basketball players took the classes. That would be the litmus test.
 

60's Guy

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
4,668
Reaction score
97
Points
48
Yes and No

Personally, I want to see a breakdown to what percentage of UNC male basketball players took the classes. That would be the litmus test.
I hear what you are saying but I think we all asked people we knew in college about classes, professors and whether it might be a good choice to sign up for. So, if one basketball player told another, this is an easy class, that doesn't prove a lot to me. The fact so many non athletes were enrolled in these classes is far more of a litmus test to me, regarding athletics as the source of the cheating.
 

Winnipegopher

Wag more, bark less
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
19
Points
38
I hear what you are saying but I think we all asked people we knew in college about classes, professors and whether it might be a good choice to sign up for. So, if one basketball player told another, this is an easy class, that doesn't prove a lot to me. The fact so many non athletes were enrolled in these classes is far more of a litmus test to me, regarding athletics as the source of the cheating.
If 2% of students took the class and 90% of basketball players did, that would tell you something.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,914
Reaction score
212
Points
63
The NCAA better think carefully about this one. By doing nothing, they may be paving the way for their own extinction. Do they take on such a powerful cash cow, knowing that it will be bloody and be a decade long black eye on their "business"? Or do they gamble and cede, and risk the slim (yet quite possible) prospect of mutiny from the other 99%, and the revelation that the NCAA itself is wholly unnecessary?

The meat grinder the NCAA is in is delicious.
I don't buy either line of reasoning in your posts. The NCAA has severely punished "cash cow" programs many times before. Further, the NCAA is necessary. A governing agency is necessary to police programs. If it's not the NCAA, it would be a nearly identical entity under a different name.
 

Gopherguy0723

Active member
Joined
Apr 9, 2013
Messages
4,013
Reaction score
0
Points
36
The NCAA is a paper tiger. It inserted itself as the college sports regulator. It has no real authority.

The schools and conferences do not need the NCAA at all.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,914
Reaction score
212
Points
63
The NCAA is a paper tiger. It inserted itself as the college sports regulator. It has no real authority.

The schools and conferences do not need the NCAA at all.
The schools and conferences are the NCAA.
 

GoodasGold

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 11, 2011
Messages
8,466
Reaction score
131
Points
63
I don't buy either line of reasoning in your posts. The NCAA has severely punished "cash cow" programs many times before. Further, the NCAA is necessary. A governing agency is necessary to police programs. If it's not the NCAA, it would be a nearly identical entity under a different name.
I think the FDA would do an equally Good job.
 

Winnipegopher

Wag more, bark less
Joined
Jan 5, 2009
Messages
3,495
Reaction score
19
Points
38
71% of the students enrolled in these classes were non athletes.
The university has 28 000 students. My guess is they have 700 student athletes. Having a group of 2% of students take 29% of the classes means a student-athlete is 15 times more likely to have enrolled in these courses. That is a problem.

My suspicion is this breaks down even more for revenue sports.
 

Otis

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 13, 2014
Messages
3,187
Reaction score
112
Points
63
71% of the students enrolled in these classes were non athletes.
Your missing his point. The 71% of normal students may represent 2% of this group. But the 29% could contain 11 or 12 of the scholarship basketball players on campus in a particular year.

Like what is the percentage of 1 and done basketball players who took this class?
 

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
347
Reaction score
30
Points
28
I played college football. I took classes where football players were way over represented compared to the regular student population. Was it because the coaching staff pushed us towards those courses? No, it's because players know which departments/courses/professors are easiest and talk amongst each other.

The reason I bring this up is because there are many people here who act like there being a bunch of student athletes in one class proves the program is guilty. This is quite common among student athletes. I bet if you polled the U of M student athletes, you would have similar findings.
 

bizzle22

Active member
Joined
Apr 17, 2016
Messages
1,781
Reaction score
17
Points
38
The university has 28 000 students. My guess is they have 700 student athletes. Having a group of 2% of students take 29% of the classes means a student-athlete is 15 times more likely to have enrolled in these courses. That is a problem.

My suspicion is this breaks down even more for revenue sports.
I see what you're saying, but you also have to take into consideration that athletes get priority registration. They get first shot at registering for classes before the rest of the student body. This is true even at most D3 schools. So if it is well known which classes are the easiest it makes sense that those classes would be filled by many of those who register first.

Make no mistake, I'm not taking the position that nothing wrong occurred here. But to really make a case that this is a NCAA violation the investigation would likely need to show that these classes were created for the purpose of keeping players eligible, or that someone else did the work for the players. And I don't think either of those things have come up yet. The larger than normal number of student-athletes in the class can be easily explained. That alone isn't proof of anything. I'd love to see UNC punished as much as anyone, but without a smoking gun I have my doubts that we see much of a punishment here.
 
Top Bottom