North Carolina Sanctions Coming Out Today

[BM1090]

There is really no way the NCAA could have punished UNC.

https://www.theringer.com/2017/10/13/16471704/north-carolina-academic-fraud-ncaa-investigation-findings

[rocket surgeon]

  "North Carolina hired Kenneth Wainstein in February of 2014 to work on an independent investigation into the scandal. It found that former African studies department chairman Nyang'oro and Crowder created bogus classes and enrolled student-athletes to help them remain eligible over a span from 1993 to 2011. Crowder left the university in 2009"

  so wha wha what part of this is not a violation? gotta love the"independant" investigations the fact that both of these (chairman??)) did not cooperate with the investigation speaks volumes.  they are probably relaxing on some warm beach with a drink with one of those little umbrellas in, reading the story and laughing their asses off-SUCKERS-ein'a?

[Jockey]

A perfect example of why people get pissed at people/organizations that are rich and powerful.

UNC breaks rules and it's "hey, no problem". A kid gets a free ticket to a baseball game and they throw down the hammer.

Stating the obvious, but the NCAA is a joke.

[B. McBannerson]

Why is this a surprise?  The NCAA said in 2012 they had no jurisdiction, legal experts agreed.  No different now.  The NCAA's role is not to be an academic overseer, nor do they have the power to do so.  If UNC, UW, MU, UF or whomever wants to use sham classes, they can.  Not a damn thing can be done about it.  Now, the school could lose its accreditation, or prestige, but that's on them.

This has been signaled for years, why the surprise?

[B. McBannerson]

A perfect example of why people get pissed at people/organizations that are rich and powerful.

UNC breaks rules and it's "hey, no problem". A kid gets a free ticket to a baseball game and they throw down the hammer.

Stating the obvious, but the NCAA is a joke.

It is more a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand the NCAA's role, mission or authority.  That would be you.  Also an example of hyperbole.  No hammer is thrown down when a kid gets a free ticket to a baseball game.

UNC broke no NCAA rules with the academic classes.  Do you not comprehend this part?

[TheyWereCones]

Seems like they took a lesson from Mr. Cartmanez.

http://southpark.cc.com/clips/165712/how-do-i-reach-these-kids

[rocket surgeon]

Why is this a surprise?  The NCAA said in 2012 they had no jurisdiction, legal experts agreed.  No different now.  The NCAA's role is not to be an academic overseer, nor do they have the power to do so.  If UNC, UW, MU, UF or whomever wants to use sham classes, they can.  Not a damn thing can be done about it.  Now, the school could lose its accreditation, or prestige, but that's on them.

This has been signaled for years, why the surprise?

  ok, thank you for the clarification.  however, why wouldn't this fall into a category of the student athlete being out of compliance with credits needed to stay academically eligible?   if thesee were "sham" classes, they wouldn't count toward the athlete remaining at 12 credits or more=full time.  then, the grades they got artificially inflated their gpa as well.  their overall gpa could have been below the "dmz" and thereby making them ineligible as well. 

[B. McBannerson]

  ok, thank you for the clarification.  however, why wouldn't this fall into a category of the student athlete being out of compliance with credits needed to stay academically eligible?   if thesee were "sham" classes, they wouldn't count toward the athlete remaining at 12 credits or more=full time.  then, the grades they got artificially inflated their gpa as well.  their overall gpa could have been below the "dmz" and thereby making them ineligible as well.

The key is the classes were offered to any student, not just athletes.  Sham or not, UNC said they were worthy of credits.  The NCAA has no jurisdiction over this.

Now, the sad part is this loophole is exposed for anyone.  Any school can now open up totally sham courses as long as all students can attend, and keep athletes eligible and in compliance.  This has gone on to some extent with easier majors than others for decades.   Or in the Louisville case, if the prostitutes were given to regular students, they could probably make the same argument.

The universities will have to decide if they want the NCAA to police this, right now the NCAA does not.   The NCAA cannot tell a school a course is too easy. That is up to each university.  In this particular case with UNC, all the sham courses were part of the Afro-American Studies department.  Imagine for a few seconds the NCAA saying a particular course or major was a sham and including any ethnic studies in that?  You can write the outrage columns for the next 6 months.  Let's not kid ourselves, if the sham major was communications, or tourism, or sport management, it would not receive the same treatment.  The blueprint is set and because schools know that political forces will protect them, they know where they can put these classes with very little scrutiny.

Jay Bilas wrote of the jurisdiction issue a few months ago.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html

SB Nation talks of the blueprint created for any school wishing to do this
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/10/14/16472900/north-carolina-ncaa-ruling-sanctions-violations-academics

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article178662681.html

[rocket surgeon]

     so much for the "free" education.  could you imagine paying for something like that?  what the breakdown of credit per dollar would be?  i mean for those who actually have to pay their tuition that is.  regarding louisville and their student athlete "elective" course on the prostitution biness.  no worries about attendance for that one, eyyn'a?

[StillAWarrior]

Does anyone else remember Marquette's "basketball physics" courses?  At least that's what I remember people calling them while I was there.  I'm not for a second equating that to what happened at UNC, but it is part of a continuum.  I can understand why the NCAA doesn't want to be in the business of deciding which classes are too easy.

And for record, this isn't a defense of UNC at all.  They sold out the school's integrity to protect athletics, and it's shameful.  But at the end of the day, it's not the NCAA's role to determine if the classes offered by a university are too easy.

[warriorchick]

Does anyone else remember Marquette's "basketball physics" courses?  At least that's what I remember people calling them while I was there.  I'm not for a second equating that to what happened at UNC, but it is part of a continuum.  I can understand why the NCAA doesn't want to be in the business of deciding which classes are too easy.

And for record, this isn't a defense of UNC at all.  They sold out the school's integrity to protect athletics, and it's shameful.  But at the end of the day, it's not the NCAA's role to determine if the classes offered by a university are too easy.

Yes, but I never got the impression that these courses were specifically designed for athletes. 

I remember classes nicknamed "Basketball Physics" and "Rocks for Jocks" because the joke was that they were so easy, even the basketball players could pass them. 

That's a hell of a lot different than setting up an entire course of study that was obviously designed for athletes to pass easily.  In my opinion, the NCAA-affiliated schools that are outraged by UNC's actions should pressure the accrediting bodies to make sure every single major is legit and in line with their standards, and to penalize the school for doing what UNC did by yanking their accreditation. If you think avoiding the NCAA death penalty is a big incentive for universities to stay on the up-and-up, imagine becoming ineligible for Federal financial aid programs.  Oh, and being dropped from the USNWR ranks altogether.

[StillAWarrior]

Yes, but I never got the impression that these courses were specifically designed for athletes. 

I remember classes nicknamed "Basketball Physics" and "Rocks for Jocks" because the joke was that they were so easy, even the basketball players could pass them. 

That's a hell of a lot different than setting up an entire course of study that was obviously designed for athletes to pass easily.  In my opinion, the NCAA-affiliated schools that are outraged by UNC's actions should pressure the accrediting bodies to make sure every single major is legit and in line with their standards, and to penalize the school for doing what UNC did by yanking their accreditation. If you think avoiding the NCAA death penalty is a big incentive for universities to stay on the up-and-up, imagine becoming ineligible for Federal financial aid programs.  Oh, and being dropped from the USNWR ranks altogether.

I agree with you completely, and didn't say anything otherwise. The problem the NCAA had in this case against UNC is that there was no evidence that these were set up specifically for athletes - by anyone in any official capacity, at least.  But once they were set up, the athletes gravitated to them because it was known they were easy A's or B's. There was conflicting evidence on whether they were steered there by the teams. But the reality is that every school has easier classes that the athletes take. And it's quite possible that the "hard" classes at some schools (and in some majors) are easier than the easiest classes at other schools. So, I can't really fault the NCAA for steering clear of deciding how easy is too easy.

I know you always defend Marquette- and that's awesome. I wasn't attacking Marquette, so no need to defend. Just making the point that it's not the NCAA's role. If they'd have found more evidence against UNC, they could have done something. But if they would have tried, they would have gotten overturned.

[Dr. Blackheart]

The key is the classes were offered to any student, not just athletes.  Sham or not, UNC said they were worthy of credits.  The NCAA has no jurisdiction over this.

Now, the sad part is this loophole is exposed for anyone.  Any school can now open up totally sham courses as long as all students can attend, and keep athletes eligible and in compliance.  This has gone on to some extent with easier majors than others for decades.   Or in the Louisville case, if the prostitutes were given to regular students, they could probably make the same argument.

The universities will have to decide if they want the NCAA to police this, right now the NCAA does not.   The NCAA cannot tell a school a course is too easy. That is up to each university.  In this particular case with UNC, all the sham courses were part of the Afro-American Studies department.  Imagine for a few seconds the NCAA saying a particular course or major was a sham and including any ethnic studies in that?  You can write the outrage columns for the next 6 months.  Let's not kid ourselves, if the sham major was communications, or tourism, or sport management, it would not receive the same treatment.  The blueprint is set and because schools know that political forces will protect them, they know where they can put these classes with very little scrutiny.

Jay Bilas wrote of the jurisdiction issue a few months ago.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html

SB Nation talks of the blueprint created for any school wishing to do this
https://www.sbnation.com/2017/10/14/16472900/north-carolina-ncaa-ruling-sanctions-violations-academics

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/mens-basketball/article178662681.html

Squirmy....

[forgetful]

It is more a perfect example of someone that doesn't understand the NCAA's role, mission or authority.  That would be you.  Also an example of hyperbole.  No hammer is thrown down when a kid gets a free ticket to a baseball game.

UNC broke no NCAA rules with the academic classes.  Do you not comprehend this part?

I disagree on the bolded.  The NCAA decided that, but the implications are problematic and I would argue still a violation.  The reason they decided it didn't violate any NCAA rules is because it benefited both athletes and students.  Athletes made up 50% of the class and it was clear they were steered to those classes solely to stay eligible.  If that is not a violation because other students benefited then a university can:

Give $50k cash to 25 students, 13 of which are basketball players as a "prize," since it benefitted students in general it doesn't matter that over 50% of the students getting the benefit are athletes.  Heck, make it $125k and divide it across 11 students, 6 of whom just happen to be elite basketball players.

The NCAA had no spine here.

Similarly, neither did the accreditation organizations who should have stripped them of their accreditation, and should have made it retroactive to include all years since they started the classes. 

The feds should also go after them and demand return of any federal financial aid that covered tuition for the sham courses. 

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

I get the argument that the NCAA shouldn't be determining whether or not a class is rigorous enough. But I feel like there is some common sense middle ground that can recognize that this wasn't a matter of the class being rigorous enough, this was a case of classes not existing except on paper. I also think that common sense should say that when 68% (I believe that's the number I saw, not sure off the top of my head) of the students in the paper classes are football and basketball players, then there was some intention behind those paper classes to benefit athletes.

[MU82]

I get the argument that the NCAA shouldn't be determining whether or not a class is rigorous enough. But I feel like there is some common sense middle ground that can recognize that this wasn't a matter of the class being rigorous enough, this was a case of classes not existing except on paper. I also think that common sense should say that when 68% (I believe that's the number I saw, not sure off the top of my head) of the students in the paper classes are football and basketball players, then there was some intention behind those paper classes to benefit athletes.

Athletes were knowingly funneled into these classes by advisers who only had the interest of the teams in mind.

It was immoral, and that's why several ex-students have sued the school, suits that are still active. A few contend they wanted to take "real" classes but that school employees actively worked to deny them the education that they signed up for - and that higher-ups (from ding-dang-golly-jeepers Roy, all the way up to the university president - winked and nodded about it.

So the courts will have more to say about this ... but none of that will result in UNC basketball getting punished at all by the NCAA.

Roy will still get to cash his immense paychecks, and the student-athletes will remain the pawns.

[B. McBannerson]

I disagree on the bolded.  The NCAA decided that, but the implications are problematic and I would argue still a violation.  The reason they decided it didn't violate any NCAA rules is because it benefited both athletes and students.  Athletes made up 50% of the class and it was clear they were steered to those classes solely to stay eligible.  If that is not a violation because other students benefited then a university can:

Give $50k cash to 25 students, 13 of which are basketball players as a "prize," since it benefitted students in general it doesn't matter that over 50% of the students getting the benefit are athletes.  Heck, make it $125k and divide it across 11 students, 6 of whom just happen to be elite basketball players.

The NCAA had no spine here.

Similarly, neither did the accreditation organizations who should have stripped them of their accreditation, and should have made it retroactive to include all years since they started the classes. 

The feds should also go after them and demand return of any federal financial aid that covered tuition for the sham courses.

Ok, you disagree.  Please tell me the NCAA bylaw that was broken. Since you disagree, should be very easy to identify the one broken.

I agree entirely with the premise that is sucks, it is unethical, it is wrong, but no rule was broken. Call it a loophole or whatever you wish, but the NCAA can't punish a school for breaking a rule that doesn't exist.  Yet people with basically no knowledge of the NCAA rip on the NCAA for doing exactly their job.

If the universities want the NCAA to get into enforcement of what classes are real or not real, then make that their mandate. Today, it is not nor were any rules broken.

[Juan Anderson's Mixtape]

I always thought "lack of institutional control" was an umbrella rule that the NCAA could fall back on when disciplining for unspecified rules.  Obviously that is not the case.

I also blame Penn St in this.  Instead of accepting responsibility for the horrible Sandusky situation, they sued cuz sports >victims.  So now the NCAA has been rendered powerless.  Whatever, none of this affects me.  I'll just go on watching, fully aware of the hypocrisy.

[forgetful]

Ok, you disagree.  Please tell me the NCAA bylaw that was broken. Since you disagree, should be very easy to identify the one broken.

I agree entirely with the premise that is sucks, it is unethical, it is wrong, but no rule was broken. Call it a loophole or whatever you wish, but the NCAA can't punish a school for breaking a rule that doesn't exist.  Yet people with basically no knowledge of the NCAA rip on the NCAA for doing exactly their job.

If the universities want the NCAA to get into enforcement of what classes are real or not real, then make that their mandate. Today, it is not nor were any rules broken.

What occurred is an impermissible academic benefit.  It is a clear and distinct violation of NCAA bylaw 10.1 since athletes were directed to those fraudulent classes for the sole benefit of keeping them eligible. 

It is also a clear violation lack of institutional control. 

The NCAA was spineless on this and didn't want lengthy legal battles. 

[B. McBannerson]

What occurred is an impermissible academic benefit.  It is a clear and distinct violation of NCAA bylaw 10.1 since athletes were directed to those fraudulent classes for the sole benefit of keeping them eligible. 

It is also a clear violation lack of institutional control. 

The NCAA was spineless on this and didn't want lengthy legal battles.

Wrong, you can't have an impermissible benefit for athletes, but they allowed any students to take these classes.  This is an academic issue and always has been. 

So again, what rule was broken?  You can't come up with it because it doesn't exist.  As much as we all want it to exist, it doesn't.  No rules were broken. 

You want the NCAA to go to battle with UNC in court where the NCAA will lose, waste money, time and resources?  Aren't you and others the ones that talk about sexual assault and what can or cannot be proved in court? Trying to have it both ways?

[forgetful]

Wrong, you can't have an impermissible benefit for athletes, but they allowed any students to take these classes.  This is an academic issue and always has been. 

So again, what rule was broken?  You can't come up with it because it doesn't exist.  As much as we all want it to exist, it doesn't.  No rules were broken. 

You want the NCAA to go to battle with UNC in court where the NCAA will lose, waste money, time and resources?  Aren't you and others the ones that talk about sexual assault and what can or cannot be proved in court? Trying to have it both ways?

Bylaw 10.1.  They specifically directed athletes towards fraudulent classes.  Your "other students took the class too" doesn't matter.  Bylaw 10.1 does not consider if fraud was committed by other students. 

You can't pay 6 basketball players $125k if you also pay 5 normal students the same amount. 

The NCAA was spineless.  They caved.

Keep the rest of the politics crap off the board, it has no relevance here.

[B. McBannerson]

No BYLAWS BROKEN

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html


You want the NCAA to enforce this, then the universities have to set the rules to do so, and ask the NCAA to do that.  Those rules don't exist and the NCAA is not asked to perform this function.  Membership makes the rules, the NCAA enforces the rules the membership makes. There are no rules on this for the NCAA to enforce, they do not exist.

It sucks, but those are the facts.  Want change, then get the rules changed.  Don't like laws, same thing. 

[forgetful]

No BYLAWS BROKEN

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/10/13/sports/unc-north-carolina-ncaa.html


You want the NCAA to enforce this, then the universities have to set the rules to do so, and ask the NCAA to do that.  Those rules don't exist and the NCAA is not asked to perform this function.  Membership makes the rules, the NCAA enforces the rules the membership makes. There are no rules on this for the NCAA to enforce, they do not exist.

It sucks, but those are the facts.  Want change, then get the rules changed.  Don't like laws, same thing.

Your article states that the NCAA confirms that this was one of the worst cases of academic fraud.

Bylaw
10.1 Unethical Conduct.
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member, which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual's institution;

(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete;

They knowingly arranged for students, including athletes, to receive fraudulent academic credit.  That is a violation of bylaw 10.1 period.  That other students received fraudulent credit is irrelevant 

The NCAA caved and was spineless.  If the infractions committee had ruled this a violation an put penalties in place it would have held up in court.

[B. McBannerson]

Bylaw 10.1.  They specifically directed athletes towards fraudulent classes.  Your "other students took the class too" doesn't matter.  Bylaw 10.1 does not consider if fraud was committed by other students. 

You can't pay 6 basketball players $125k if you also pay 5 normal students the same amount. 

The NCAA was spineless.  They caved.

Bylaw 10.1 states  “Unethical conduct” consists of knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit...for an enrolled student-athlete.”   The problem here is that non student athletes also got credit.  It was not a benefit for student athletes only. 


Look, I am 100% in agreement with you that this whole thing sucks.  This is a massive loophole and because they got away with it, the spotlight on how to repeat it is there for all to see.   This loophole needs to be closed, and closed quickly.  Otherwise tutors doing work for student athletes, which is a violation, will become a non-violation if tutors also do them for the general student body.  It is ripe with problems.  The NCAA doesn't write the rules, this has to come from the membership.

[forgetful]

Bylaw 10.1 states  “Unethical conduct” consists of knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit...for an enrolled student-athlete.”   The problem here is that non student athletes also got credit.  It was not a benefit for student athletes only. 


Look, I am 100% in agreement with you that this whole thing sucks.  This is a massive loophole and because they got away with it, the spotlight on how to repeat it is there for all to see.   This loophole needs to be closed, and closed quickly.  Otherwise tutors doing work for student athletes, which is a violation, will become a non-violation if tutors also do them for the general student body.  It is ripe with problems.  The NCAA doesn't write the rules, this has to come from the membership.

Were "enrolled student-athletes" part of the fraud?  If yes, then they violated bylaw 10.1. 

The other students committed fraud argument is not a legal defense of bylaw 10.1.