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

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
350
Reaction score
34
Points
28
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.
Thank you for being one of the few here who thinks rationally about this situation and doesn't just jump to "THEYRE GUILTY AND THIS IS PROOF". I really don't understand the UNC witch hunt on these boards.
 

dpodoll68

Elite Poster
Joined
Nov 24, 2008
Messages
18,918
Reaction score
217
Points
63
I really don't understand the UNC witch hunt on these boards.
It's pretty easy. Apologists are looking for any excuse to rationalize the widespread, systematic, institutionalized cheating that took place here over the course of several years. What they don't understand and refuse to accept is that, regardless of how the UNC situation turns out, we deserved everything we got, and probably more.
 

Tim1406

Active member
Joined
Apr 10, 2013
Messages
1,183
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It's pretty easy. Apologists are looking for any excuse to rationalize the widespread, systematic, institutionalized cheating that took place here over the course of several years. What they don't understand and refuse to accept is that, regardless of how the UNC situation turns out, we deserved everything we got, and probably more.
Even if you're not trying to rationalize our own scandal it's always tough to see first hand or live through a double standard. It appears to be similar academic cheating to many people. So for UNC to not get punished as they deserve, when we got punished like we deserved it touches on a nerve.
 

Mulligan

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 12, 2009
Messages
3,147
Reaction score
132
Points
63
Thank you for being one of the few here who thinks rationally about this situation and doesn't just jump to "THEYRE GUILTY AND THIS IS PROOF". I really don't understand the UNC witch hunt on these boards.
Maybe this will help although it's really not that hard to understand. From the Charlotte paper:

Rashad McCants, the second-leading scorer on the North Carolina basketball team that won the 2004-05 national title, told ESPN's "Outside the Lines" that tutors wrote his term papers, he rarely went to class for about half his time at UNC, and he remained able to play largely because he took bogus classes designed to keep athletes academically eligible.
 

WoodburyTim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
63
Points
48
Thank you for being one of the few here who thinks rationally about this situation and doesn't just jump to "THEYRE GUILTY AND THIS IS PROOF". I really don't understand the UNC witch hunt on these boards.
Witch hunt? This case has a lot of nuances and UNC might be able to slip the noose in the end, but to call it a witch hunt is either not understanding what a witch hunt is or so blinded by baby blue that you don't care what the facts of this case are.

For the rest of us who are able to look at this with some objectivity, this decision is going to have long ranging implications. UNC might slip through because while the spirit of the rule was not only broken it was smashed, a solid argument could be made that this does not fall under the NCAA jurisdiction. But the extension of that is that using UNC's road map any school that was willing could easily craft a scheme that matches UNC's and falls outside of the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Offer easy no show classes that are run and operated by athletic sympathetic faculty with the simple caveat that the no show paper classes are not closed to athletes. You could even have as much as 50% athletes if you please. If too much attention ever falls on the scheme, you can simply say it is an "institutional issue" that the University is looking into and wait for it to blow over.
 

A nonymous

Active member
Joined
Jan 17, 2017
Messages
350
Reaction score
34
Points
28
Witch hunt? This case has a lot of nuances and UNC might be able to slip the noose in the end, but to call it a witch hunt is either not understanding what a witch hunt is or so blinded by baby blue that you don't care what the facts of this case are.

For the rest of us who are able to look at this with some objectivity, this decision is going to have long ranging implications. UNC might slip through because while the spirit of the rule was not only broken it was smashed, a solid argument could be made that this does not fall under the NCAA jurisdiction. But the extension of that is that using UNC's road map any school that was willing could easily craft a scheme that matches UNC's and falls outside of the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Offer easy no show classes that are run and operated by athletic sympathetic faculty with the simple caveat that the no show paper classes are not closed to athletes. You could even have as much as 50% athletes if you please. If too much attention ever falls on the scheme, you can simply say it is an "institutional issue" that the University is looking into and wait for it to blow over.
Hilarious response.

1. I'm certainly no fan of UNC. If you read what i've posted in this thread, you would realize that I am one of the few who actually has looked at this case with objectivity.

2. This is the very definition of a witch hunt. The assumption of guilt before the facts are laid out. The distortion of available facts to suit the predetermined verdict.

3. You said it yourself, the case is nuanced. Check back to the first few responses to this thread - no discussion, no consideration of nuance, just assumption of guilt. Witch hunt.

4. Every school has easy no show classes. I don't understand where people get the idea that these classes are unique to UNC. They exist at pretty much every single college in America.

5. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes a legitimate college course for athletes? You would have the no show classes be suitable for a normal student, but they are off-limits to athletes because there should somehow be a higher standard? How about online courses? How about the majority of 100-level courses at large colleges, where you can literally choose to never attend class, read the book, and show up on the day of the exams and never have to turn in anything? What about the large courses where there are no exams, so you never show up except to turn in your papers? I attended classes at the U within the past 10 years, and saw MANY athletes show up for the first day of class, and then never be seen again unless it was exam day. How is that any different than paper classes at UNC???? What happens when an athlete needs a certain course to graduate, but the big bad NCAA rules for athletes prevents him from enrolling in a course he/she needed in order to graduate, and this caused a delay in graduation? This is why the NCAA should not have jurisdiction over an academic accrediting body. It goes far beyond "THOSE ARE SHAM CLASSES AND THE NCAA SHOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING." You actually have to think about how they could accomplish this, and it's exceedingly obvious to anybody with a brain that the NCAA is not equipped to do this. It's impossible.

The system works. It has worked for years. The teams that cheat, usually get caught. Sometimes, rarely, teams get away with things. The NCAA is too big and cumbersome already. More overreach results in unneeded restriction. The thing is, the nature of college education has greatly changed recently, to the point where the classic "show up to lecture, take notes, turn in your assignments, take your exams" is becoming less and less common. For the NCAA to try to regulate that will severely limit the academic freedoms of student athletes. That is the core argument here.
 

alchemy2u

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
3,918
Reaction score
79
Points
48
Hilarious response.

1. I'm certainly no fan of UNC. If you read what i've posted in this thread, you would realize that I am one of the few who actually has looked at this case with objectivity.

2. This is the very definition of a witch hunt. The assumption of guilt before the facts are laid out. The distortion of available facts to suit the predetermined verdict.

3. You said it yourself, the case is nuanced. Check back to the first few responses to this thread - no discussion, no consideration of nuance, just assumption of guilt. Witch hunt.

4. Every school has easy no show classes. I don't understand where people get the idea that these classes are unique to UNC. They exist at pretty much every single college in America.

5. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes a legitimate college course for athletes? You would have the no show classes be suitable for a normal student, but they are off-limits to athletes because there should somehow be a higher standard? How about online courses? How about the majority of 100-level courses at large colleges, where you can literally choose to never attend class, read the book, and show up on the day of the exams and never have to turn in anything? What about the large courses where there are no exams, so you never show up except to turn in your papers? I attended classes at the U within the past 10 years, and saw MANY athletes show up for the first day of class, and then never be seen again unless it was exam day. How is that any different than paper classes at UNC???? What happens when an athlete needs a certain course to graduate, but the big bad NCAA rules for athletes prevents him from enrolling in a course he/she needed in order to graduate, and this caused a delay in graduation? This is why the NCAA should not have jurisdiction over an academic accrediting body. It goes far beyond "THOSE ARE SHAM CLASSES AND THE NCAA SHOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING." You actually have to think about how they could accomplish this, and it's exceedingly obvious to anybody with a brain that the NCAA is not equipped to do this. It's impossible.

The system works. It has worked for years. The teams that cheat, usually get caught. Sometimes, rarely, teams get away with things. The NCAA is too big and cumbersome already. More overreach results in unneeded restriction. The thing is, the nature of college education has greatly changed recently, to the point where the classic "show up to lecture, take notes, turn in your assignments, take your exams" is becoming less and less common. For the NCAA to try to regulate that will severely limit the academic freedoms of student athletes. That is the core argument here.
Wow, do you write tweets for politicians as your day/ late night job?

UNC has cheated those students out of an education and used them purely for the promotion of their BB program. They epitomize what is wrong in college sports. Using the old "everybody" does it excuse is BS! Of course, each student gets out of it what they put into it and some can skate along with lighter loads. There were a handful of UNC students that were able to use their "NBA minor league" to their advantage, but there were many more that were just pushed out unprepared to earn a living by other means.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 

WoodburyTim

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 26, 2016
Messages
1,375
Reaction score
63
Points
48
Hilarious response.

1. I'm certainly no fan of UNC. If you read what i've posted in this thread, you would realize that I am one of the few who actually has looked at this case with objectivity.

2. This is the very definition of a witch hunt. The assumption of guilt before the facts are laid out. The distortion of available facts to suit the predetermined verdict.

3. You said it yourself, the case is nuanced. Check back to the first few responses to this thread - no discussion, no consideration of nuance, just assumption of guilt. Witch hunt.

4. Every school has easy no show classes. I don't understand where people get the idea that these classes are unique to UNC. They exist at pretty much every single college in America.

5. Where do you draw the line for what constitutes a legitimate college course for athletes? You would have the no show classes be suitable for a normal student, but they are off-limits to athletes because there should somehow be a higher standard? How about online courses? How about the majority of 100-level courses at large colleges, where you can literally choose to never attend class, read the book, and show up on the day of the exams and never have to turn in anything? What about the large courses where there are no exams, so you never show up except to turn in your papers? I attended classes at the U within the past 10 years, and saw MANY athletes show up for the first day of class, and then never be seen again unless it was exam day. How is that any different than paper classes at UNC???? What happens when an athlete needs a certain course to graduate, but the big bad NCAA rules for athletes prevents him from enrolling in a course he/she needed in order to graduate, and this caused a delay in graduation? This is why the NCAA should not have jurisdiction over an academic accrediting body. It goes far beyond "THOSE ARE SHAM CLASSES AND THE NCAA SHOULD PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING." You actually have to think about how they could accomplish this, and it's exceedingly obvious to anybody with a brain that the NCAA is not equipped to do this. It's impossible.

The system works. It has worked for years. The teams that cheat, usually get caught. Sometimes, rarely, teams get away with things. The NCAA is too big and cumbersome already. More overreach results in unneeded restriction. The thing is, the nature of college education has greatly changed recently, to the point where the classic "show up to lecture, take notes, turn in your assignments, take your exams" is becoming less and less common. For the NCAA to try to regulate that will severely limit the academic freedoms of student athletes. That is the core argument here.
Well I guess it is option 1 where you don't know what a witch hunt is. Like you said the case is nuanced, that is no where near what a witch hunt is. What you are saying is that UNC did absolutely unequivocally nothing wrong and why? Because you never find a real witch at the end of the hunt, because witches aren't real.
 

jamalo

Banned
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
0
Points
36
It's pretty easy. Apologists are looking for any excuse to rationalize the widespread, systematic, institutionalized cheating that took place here over the course of several years. What they don't understand and refuse to accept is that, regardless of how the UNC situation turns out, we deserved everything we got, and probably more.
Love dpodoll68 trying to pretend to be a Gopher fan while hiding behind his sanctimonious BS. Dolly doesn't realize that the concept of amateurism in Power 5 football and basketball doesn't exist; it is a matter of who has connections and who gets caught. Either extremely naive or disinfo
 
Joined
Jul 29, 2011
Messages
83
Reaction score
0
Points
6
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.
UNC should lose their accreditation for their 29% argument. Or maybe they should be given a drink with 29% poison...who wouldn't gladly drink that?
 
Top Bottom