The Carolina Way VIII
- Thread starter DevilDJ
- Start date
- Status
Roy omitted , of course. Football too. Examine this closer. Glowing comments for baseball , Sylvia , field hockey , softball and men's and women's soccer. WTF?! All those sports indicted in the scam. Yes , ALL. unx just recently "self-reported" infractions in the wbb and men's soccer programs. Transparent ploy to delay the COI hearing. Both are sports the holes are more than willing to throw under the bus to save basketball and football. The baseball program went from zero-to-sixty overnight. Google "Hobbs Johnson" sometime and learn how he went from flunking out to 4 A's in summer school. That field hockey team just won ( or is about to win ) a title. A player on unx's softball team , Constance Orr , was an agent's "runner." When even your field hockey and softball programs are dirty...you're pretty dadgum dirty....
Stroman class full of athletes...
unx aware of clustering. Requested special treatment for athletes...
Boxill neck-deep...
No policy on Independent Study prior to 2011. unx exploited that...
Baddour AND Gutheridge put their names on a document that concedes the fact that athletes had access to academic services that were not otherwise available to regular students. unx has always steadfastly stated that such was not the case....
Not just AFAM involved? Say it ain't so...
unx aware of clustering. Requested special treatment for athletes...
Boxill neck-deep...
No policy on Independent Study prior to 2011. unx exploited that...
Baddour AND Gutheridge put their names on a document that concedes the fact that athletes had access to academic services that were not otherwise available to regular students. unx has always steadfastly stated that such was not the case....
Not just AFAM involved? Say it ain't so...
Artificially-inflating the GPA's of Roy's guys ain't cheap...
My my, how delicious is that...and the spelling is the cherry on top.
OFC
Notice the spelling in that e-mail...?
"Tutering." No wonder the athletes are poorly-educated at unx. Those charged with teaching 'em are morons. lulz. Roy's boys eat up all that money but the tarhole nation tells us that "Men's basketball is in the clear" and "This was all done to benefit the women's program."
It's still here...
unx counts on the naivete of recruits when selling 'em on the "carolina way" and "No sanctions for Roy and Fed" rhetoric...
Lotsa eyes on athletes and their academics but no one knew...?
Two things. Tutors lament having players dump their personal bs on 'em and men's basketball is kept separate from the other sports. Hinky...
"Plausible deniability" is not a defense. We're lookin' at YOU , Roy...
This is a hoot. Coaches decide who does and who doesn't tutor their players. I thought "athletics" wasn't involved...?
unx counts on the naivete of recruits when selling 'em on the "carolina way" and "No sanctions for Roy and Fed" rhetoric...
Lotsa eyes on athletes and their academics but no one knew...?
Two things. Tutors lament having players dump their personal bs on 'em and men's basketball is kept separate from the other sports. Hinky...
"Plausible deniability" is not a defense. We're lookin' at YOU , Roy...
This is a hoot. Coaches decide who does and who doesn't tutor their players. I thought "athletics" wasn't involved...?
Coaches are responsible for making academics a "top priority." unx did that , right...?
unx uninterested in long-term education of athletes. Shocker. Just keep 'em playing while they they have eligibility. After that? Who cares...?
No surprise here either. Players kept separate from regular students. Coaches view them as property of the athletic department...
"Separate but equal..."
unx uninterested in long-term education of athletes. Shocker. Just keep 'em playing while they they have eligibility. After that? Who cares...?
No surprise here either. Players kept separate from regular students. Coaches view them as property of the athletic department...
"Separate but equal..."
B-Rad's gala premier. Lulz...
Unverified: The Film@Unverified_Film
UNVERIFIED will premiere on January 8 at The Varsity on Franklin. Kickstarter backers, check your email. More details coming soon.
Unverified: The Film @Unverified_Film
@slyon28 We'll doing special screenings and Q&A sessions with Bradley in Charlotte and elsewhere. Details coming later this week.
Unverified: The Film@Unverified_Film
UNVERIFIED will premiere on January 8 at The Varsity on Franklin. Kickstarter backers, check your email. More details coming soon.
Unverified: The Film @Unverified_Film
@slyon28 We'll doing special screenings and Q&A sessions with Bradley in Charlotte and elsewhere. Details coming later this week.
When unx promised "transparency" I didn't think it referred to B-Rad's ( continuing ) efforts to shoot the messenger...in this case it seems to be Jay Smith...
Coaching the Mind@BethelLearning
unc is mailing me the largest package I'll ever receive.
Coaching the Mind@BethelLearning
unc is mailing me the largest package I'll ever receive.
"Fairy tales." The guy who sent this e-mail nailed it...
Boxill really was a piece of crap. "Toxic culture." Blames the players for their academic performance and the unwillingness of them to help each other. unx created that "culture." It came about by recruiting kids unx knew were incapable of doing college-level work then expecting 'em to somehow excel in the classroom. Many just couldn't do the work...much less HELP each other. Gawd , that place is a such a sheethole...
APR concerns? No kiddin...'
Boxill really was a piece of crap. "Toxic culture." Blames the players for their academic performance and the unwillingness of them to help each other. unx created that "culture." It came about by recruiting kids unx knew were incapable of doing college-level work then expecting 'em to somehow excel in the classroom. Many just couldn't do the work...much less HELP each other. Gawd , that place is a such a sheethole...
APR concerns? No kiddin...'
Manalishi. Part I. Happy Thanksgiving...
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 3.1/5 this site
1508 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
Avatar
Posted: Today 2:32 PM
Re: unc's (eventual) sanctions -- information primer (x2)
To those who still think unc will get a “wrist slap” – whether they be people who have only listened to and bought the PR spin, or they are pessimists who refuse to look at logic and rationale…
A closer look at the recent SMU and Syracuse infractions and penalties, as well as older sections of the NCAA handbook, will give good insight into what will basically be the “floor” that unc can expect with its own sanctions.
The SMU infractions covered the dates post-2012, which meant that they were penalized under the new (harsher) penalty matrix.
Some important distinctions:
-- The basketball portion of SMU’s infractions involved ONE (prospective, at the time of the infraction) student athlete whose work in a summer online course was completed by a tutor.
-- As part of the penalties, the SMU basketball team was forced to vacate all of the victories in which that player participated during his succeeding Freshman season.
-- Some of the terms used in SMU’s infractions-explanation:
“… institutions act through their staff and the institution’s staff committed multiple Level I violations in this case.”
-- Along with the vacated victories that the affected player participated in, the basketball program also lost nine scholarships over three seasons, was handed a one-year postseason ban, was given recruiting restrictions, was levied fines, and the coach was given a partial suspension. Again, this was for one player whose work (in an online course) was done by a tutor.
-- SMU received the above sanctions despite NOT being charged with “Lack of Institutional Control”, the most serious allegation that the NCAA can give a school.
“Although SMU’s case involved Level I violations, the panel did not conclude there was a
lack of institutional control or a failure to comply with the terms of probation.”
Of note --
The Committee on Infractions members who comprised the panel that heard SMU’s case were:
Michael F. Adams (Chief Hearing Officer)
Greg Christopher
Jack Ford
Thomas Hill
James O'Fallon
Sankar Suryanarayan
///
SMU’s case pales in comparison to unc’s, primarily because it was essentially one (basketball) athlete for SMU (along with some issues with the golf program), versus hundreds of athletes (across several high-profile sports) for unc.
The Syracuse case is closer to unc’s case for several reasons.
-- It happened over an extended amount of time.
-- Its basketball program was affected.
-- It was judged under the NCAA’s old penalty structure.
The Syracuse infractions that were covered in the NOA primarily spanned dates that preceded the so-called “new penalty matrix”. As a result, Syracuse was penalized under the old penalty structure.
Breakdown of the Syracuse Infractions Decision
Some important phrases and distinctions:
-- “The institution failed to control and monitor athletics and academic initiatives it set in motion – ultimately resulting in extensive academic misconduct, including four instances of academic fraud and three instances in which student-athletes received academic extra benefits.”
Analysis: Both the Wainstein Report and the NCAA’s own Notice of Allegations (and supporting documentation/exhibits) confirms that unc’s case dealt with hundreds of instances of academic fraud – which were classified as “impermissible benefits” in the NOA. (more on those semantics later)
-- “The duration and nature of violations in this case required strong penalties beyond what the institution self-imposed. Improper institutional involvement and influence in a student-athlete's academic work in order to gain or maintain eligibility is a violation of NCAA rules and a violation of the most fundamental core values of the NCAA and higher education. The behavior in this case, which placed the desire to achieve success on the basketball court over academic integrity, demonstrated clearly misplaced institutional priorities. Similarly, many of the violations occurred as a result of persons of leadership engaging in or condoning conduct that was contrary to the NCAA Constitution and bylaws.”
Analysis:
The wording in the above paragraph is extremely important, as it imparts the thinking of the “new” NCAA that has emerged over the past few years as it prepares for several upcoming litigation cases. For that reason, that line of thinking will also be applied to the decision-making process in unc’s eventual sanctions.
-- An explanation of why Syracuse was judged under the older, more lenient, penalty structure was given:
“Because the violations in this case straddled the implementation of the new penalty structure, the institution was entitled to the more lenient penalty structure. The panel conducted a penalty analysis under both the current and former penalty structures and determined former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 provided the more lenient penalties.”
Analysis:
Given the above explanation, in all likelihood it can be expected that unc will be judged under the old structure as well – unless there is wording somewhere in the NCAA bylaws that allow for mitigating factors to play a role.
-- Under the more lenient structure, Syracuse was given the following:
“In accordance with former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2, the panel prescribed a five-year probationary period; a financial penalty; three scholarship reductions per year over a four-year period in men's basketball (reduced to two per year following an appeal); the panel accepted the institution's post-hearing self-imposed one-year postseason ban in men's basketball; a vacation of victories in which ineligible student-athletes participated; a nine-game suspension from conference games for the head basketball coach; two-years of recruiting restrictions in men's basketball and other appropriate and standard administrative penalties as detailed in the penalty section of this decision.”
-- In reference to the oft-asked question of why unc has been charged with Impermissible Benefits instead of Academic Fraud (despite the seemingly-obvious existence of widespread fraud/cheating that was detailed in both the Wainstein Report and the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations to the school), the following from Syracuse’s report sheds some valuable insight:
“The institution identified these instances as potential academic integrity violations. The enforcement staff deferred to the institution to determine whether its academic integrity policy had been violated. Pursuant to the institution's policies and procedures, it reviewed the matters. In each instance involving the support services mentor, the course instructor could not locate a copy of the submitted work. As a result, the institution determined that the student-athletes had not violated the institution's academic integrity policy. Thereafter, the enforcement staff, operating under the authority of the Legislative Council's April 2014 official interpretation on academic misconduct determined that allegations of extra benefits legislation were warranted.”
Analysis:
As has been mentioned at various times in the past, in most situations the NCAA leaves it up to a school to determine if academic fraud has been committed. This plays into the whole “the NCAA isn’t going to tell schools how a class should be taught” stance.
When Syracuse came back and said that its student-athletes had not violated its academic integrity policy, then instead of charging the school with academic fraud, the NCAA classified the transgressions as extra benefits (as noted above in bold).
This is almost exactly what has happened in unc’s case, though on a much broader and more complex scale. unc has certainly never officially admitted to any sort of academic fraud with regards to its dealings with the NCAA. As a result, the NCAA then moved forward and deemed all of those instances/irregularities as impermissible benefits.
They will ultimately carry the same penalties no matter how they are named, as both lead to (retroactive) loss of eligibility.
More wording from the Syracuse report that is relevant to unc’s case:
“As was suggested earlier, the record clearly suggests a pattern of behavior. The director of basketball operations (whom the head basketball coach hired to "fix" the academic problems) and the men's basketball facility receptionist would monitor the email accounts of the student-athletes, would identify potential academic situations and deficiencies in coursework completion that might create eligibility problems, and then proceed to work in concert to remedy the problem. The result was the academic performance of the basketball student-athletes improved and fewer student-athletes were ineligible. However, the extreme level of academic assistance not only violated the institution's own policies for tutors and support service providers but also NCAA rules that preclude student-athletes from being provided academic benefits that are not available to the general population.”
Analysis:
As with Syracuse, a definite “pattern of behavior” is evident in unc’s case.
Furthermore, mention was made in unc’s Notice of Allegations about the eligibility of players being affected, and the fact that the student-athletes were provided academic benefits not available to the general population.
As a result, one can expect to see similar wording in unc’s impending report, and can expect such issues to have an effect on unc’s sanctions...
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 3.1/5 this site
1508 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
Avatar
Posted: Today 2:32 PM
Re: unc's (eventual) sanctions -- information primer (x2)
To those who still think unc will get a “wrist slap” – whether they be people who have only listened to and bought the PR spin, or they are pessimists who refuse to look at logic and rationale…
A closer look at the recent SMU and Syracuse infractions and penalties, as well as older sections of the NCAA handbook, will give good insight into what will basically be the “floor” that unc can expect with its own sanctions.
The SMU infractions covered the dates post-2012, which meant that they were penalized under the new (harsher) penalty matrix.
Some important distinctions:
-- The basketball portion of SMU’s infractions involved ONE (prospective, at the time of the infraction) student athlete whose work in a summer online course was completed by a tutor.
-- As part of the penalties, the SMU basketball team was forced to vacate all of the victories in which that player participated during his succeeding Freshman season.
-- Some of the terms used in SMU’s infractions-explanation:
“… institutions act through their staff and the institution’s staff committed multiple Level I violations in this case.”
-- Along with the vacated victories that the affected player participated in, the basketball program also lost nine scholarships over three seasons, was handed a one-year postseason ban, was given recruiting restrictions, was levied fines, and the coach was given a partial suspension. Again, this was for one player whose work (in an online course) was done by a tutor.
-- SMU received the above sanctions despite NOT being charged with “Lack of Institutional Control”, the most serious allegation that the NCAA can give a school.
“Although SMU’s case involved Level I violations, the panel did not conclude there was a
lack of institutional control or a failure to comply with the terms of probation.”
Of note --
The Committee on Infractions members who comprised the panel that heard SMU’s case were:
Michael F. Adams (Chief Hearing Officer)
Greg Christopher
Jack Ford
Thomas Hill
James O'Fallon
Sankar Suryanarayan
///
SMU’s case pales in comparison to unc’s, primarily because it was essentially one (basketball) athlete for SMU (along with some issues with the golf program), versus hundreds of athletes (across several high-profile sports) for unc.
The Syracuse case is closer to unc’s case for several reasons.
-- It happened over an extended amount of time.
-- Its basketball program was affected.
-- It was judged under the NCAA’s old penalty structure.
The Syracuse infractions that were covered in the NOA primarily spanned dates that preceded the so-called “new penalty matrix”. As a result, Syracuse was penalized under the old penalty structure.
Breakdown of the Syracuse Infractions Decision
Some important phrases and distinctions:
-- “The institution failed to control and monitor athletics and academic initiatives it set in motion – ultimately resulting in extensive academic misconduct, including four instances of academic fraud and three instances in which student-athletes received academic extra benefits.”
Analysis: Both the Wainstein Report and the NCAA’s own Notice of Allegations (and supporting documentation/exhibits) confirms that unc’s case dealt with hundreds of instances of academic fraud – which were classified as “impermissible benefits” in the NOA. (more on those semantics later)
-- “The duration and nature of violations in this case required strong penalties beyond what the institution self-imposed. Improper institutional involvement and influence in a student-athlete's academic work in order to gain or maintain eligibility is a violation of NCAA rules and a violation of the most fundamental core values of the NCAA and higher education. The behavior in this case, which placed the desire to achieve success on the basketball court over academic integrity, demonstrated clearly misplaced institutional priorities. Similarly, many of the violations occurred as a result of persons of leadership engaging in or condoning conduct that was contrary to the NCAA Constitution and bylaws.”
Analysis:
The wording in the above paragraph is extremely important, as it imparts the thinking of the “new” NCAA that has emerged over the past few years as it prepares for several upcoming litigation cases. For that reason, that line of thinking will also be applied to the decision-making process in unc’s eventual sanctions.
-- An explanation of why Syracuse was judged under the older, more lenient, penalty structure was given:
“Because the violations in this case straddled the implementation of the new penalty structure, the institution was entitled to the more lenient penalty structure. The panel conducted a penalty analysis under both the current and former penalty structures and determined former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2 provided the more lenient penalties.”
Analysis:
Given the above explanation, in all likelihood it can be expected that unc will be judged under the old structure as well – unless there is wording somewhere in the NCAA bylaws that allow for mitigating factors to play a role.
-- Under the more lenient structure, Syracuse was given the following:
“In accordance with former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2, the panel prescribed a five-year probationary period; a financial penalty; three scholarship reductions per year over a four-year period in men's basketball (reduced to two per year following an appeal); the panel accepted the institution's post-hearing self-imposed one-year postseason ban in men's basketball; a vacation of victories in which ineligible student-athletes participated; a nine-game suspension from conference games for the head basketball coach; two-years of recruiting restrictions in men's basketball and other appropriate and standard administrative penalties as detailed in the penalty section of this decision.”
-- In reference to the oft-asked question of why unc has been charged with Impermissible Benefits instead of Academic Fraud (despite the seemingly-obvious existence of widespread fraud/cheating that was detailed in both the Wainstein Report and the NCAA’s Notice of Allegations to the school), the following from Syracuse’s report sheds some valuable insight:
“The institution identified these instances as potential academic integrity violations. The enforcement staff deferred to the institution to determine whether its academic integrity policy had been violated. Pursuant to the institution's policies and procedures, it reviewed the matters. In each instance involving the support services mentor, the course instructor could not locate a copy of the submitted work. As a result, the institution determined that the student-athletes had not violated the institution's academic integrity policy. Thereafter, the enforcement staff, operating under the authority of the Legislative Council's April 2014 official interpretation on academic misconduct determined that allegations of extra benefits legislation were warranted.”
Analysis:
As has been mentioned at various times in the past, in most situations the NCAA leaves it up to a school to determine if academic fraud has been committed. This plays into the whole “the NCAA isn’t going to tell schools how a class should be taught” stance.
When Syracuse came back and said that its student-athletes had not violated its academic integrity policy, then instead of charging the school with academic fraud, the NCAA classified the transgressions as extra benefits (as noted above in bold).
This is almost exactly what has happened in unc’s case, though on a much broader and more complex scale. unc has certainly never officially admitted to any sort of academic fraud with regards to its dealings with the NCAA. As a result, the NCAA then moved forward and deemed all of those instances/irregularities as impermissible benefits.
They will ultimately carry the same penalties no matter how they are named, as both lead to (retroactive) loss of eligibility.
More wording from the Syracuse report that is relevant to unc’s case:
“As was suggested earlier, the record clearly suggests a pattern of behavior. The director of basketball operations (whom the head basketball coach hired to "fix" the academic problems) and the men's basketball facility receptionist would monitor the email accounts of the student-athletes, would identify potential academic situations and deficiencies in coursework completion that might create eligibility problems, and then proceed to work in concert to remedy the problem. The result was the academic performance of the basketball student-athletes improved and fewer student-athletes were ineligible. However, the extreme level of academic assistance not only violated the institution's own policies for tutors and support service providers but also NCAA rules that preclude student-athletes from being provided academic benefits that are not available to the general population.”
Analysis:
As with Syracuse, a definite “pattern of behavior” is evident in unc’s case.
Furthermore, mention was made in unc’s Notice of Allegations about the eligibility of players being affected, and the fact that the student-athletes were provided academic benefits not available to the general population.
As a result, one can expect to see similar wording in unc’s impending report, and can expect such issues to have an effect on unc’s sanctions...
Part II...
Regarding the cooperation of university staffers, the following was included in the Syracuse report:
“Full cooperation is essential to the infractions process. It is only by full and complete cooperation that the infractions process works. Because the academic coordinator did not cooperate with the enforcement staff's repeated requests she failed to fulfill her membership obligation and violated NCAA bylaws. Further, her conduct is contrary to the principles of ethical conduct. The academic coordinator did eventually cooperate. Although untimely, her eventual cooperation reduces what would otherwise have been considered a Level I violation. The panel noted that NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1 – Severe Breach of conduct lists failure to cooperate as an example for a Level I violation. Level I violations seriously undermine and threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The cooperative principle is the foundation of the infractions process.”
Analysis:
This leads into Nyan’goro and Crowder both being charged with Level I infractions.
The NCAA is well aware as to why those two staffers refused to speak and give testimony in this case, and the results of those refusals are not likely to be positive.
Regarding previous cases:
Throughout both the Syracuse and SMU reports, numerous, previous NCAA infractions cases were referenced when explaining why certain decisions/penalties were made. These include (but are not limited to) cases involving USC, Oklahoma, and Purdue.
Analysis:
This helps to further establish the “floor” of penalties that can be expected, as sanctions can be expected (for similar infractions) that are no less than previous NCAA cases.
A discussion of Syracuse’s penalties, and using that information to establish the likely floor of unc’s penalties:
“Therefore, the panel classified this case as Level I – Aggravated. Because of the required more stringent core penalties for a Level I – Aggravated case under Figure 19-1, the panel prescribes appropriate penalties under former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.
“The panel prescribed a five-year probationary period as a result of the 10-year period in which the institution permitted violations to occur and lacked control over the administration of the administration of its athletics programs.”
Analysis:
This would strongly suggest that unc is likely looking at a (minimum) five-year probationary period, as well.
Vacation of victories:
“As a result of violations of NCAA legislation student-athletes 1 through 10 became ineligible for competition.”
Analysis:
As has been discussed before, any contest in which an ineligible player participated will be forfeited. For Syracuse, that meant vacating a number of victories from 2004 onward.
Syracuse had 10 athletes affected.
How many has unc had, and for how many sports?
Another consideration to keep in mind:
According to NCAA rules, a student-athlete becomes ineligible from the moment he/she accepts an impermissible benefit onward. That means if a player is determined to have accepted an impermissible benefit halfway through his/her Freshman season, then every contest from that point forward – mid-Freshman-year through Senior year, if applicable – will be retroactively forfeited.
Unless an institution discovers/reports the impermissible benefit while a student-athlete is still in school – and petitions the NCAA for that athlete’s reinstatement – then he/she becomes (and retroactively remains) ineligible from that point-of-infraction forward.
-- Fines:
“Consistent with the fine prescribed for ineligible student-athlete participation in University of Oklahoma, Case No. M351 (2011), the institution (Syracuse) shall pay a fine to the NCAA of $500 per contest played by student-athletes 1 through 10 when they were ineligible to participate.”
Analysis:
If the NCAA maintains this same baseline (established in the 2011 Oklahoma case and then repeated in Syracuse’s case), then the potential overall fines for unc could be staggering.
10 student-athletes were involved in Syracuse’s case. The school was fined $500 PER CONTEST played by each of those athletes.
How many student-athletes will ultimately be deemed ineligible in the unc case (across multiple sports)? 50? 100? More?
And how many contests did each (ineligible) player participate in?
If it was a basketball player with three seasons worth of ineligible participation, for example, that could be 30 games times three seasons, or 90 games total – at $500 apiece – for a total fine of $45,000.
But that is for only one player. What if 50 basketball players (from the years 2002-2011, which the NOA covers) are in the same situation and cost the school a $45,000 fine, apiece?...
Men’s basketball… Football… Women’s basketball… Women’s soccer… Track and Field… other sports?
This is likely an area where a deal could be struck with the university, in my opinion.
-- Of note:
The Committee on Infractions members who comprised the panel that heard Syracuse’s case was:
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL
Michael Adams
Britton Banowsky (Chief Hearing Officer)
Thomas Hill
Roscoe C. Howard, Jr.
Joel Maturi
Greg Sankey
Regarding the cooperation of university staffers, the following was included in the Syracuse report:
“Full cooperation is essential to the infractions process. It is only by full and complete cooperation that the infractions process works. Because the academic coordinator did not cooperate with the enforcement staff's repeated requests she failed to fulfill her membership obligation and violated NCAA bylaws. Further, her conduct is contrary to the principles of ethical conduct. The academic coordinator did eventually cooperate. Although untimely, her eventual cooperation reduces what would otherwise have been considered a Level I violation. The panel noted that NCAA Bylaw 19.1.1 – Severe Breach of conduct lists failure to cooperate as an example for a Level I violation. Level I violations seriously undermine and threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model. The cooperative principle is the foundation of the infractions process.”
Analysis:
This leads into Nyan’goro and Crowder both being charged with Level I infractions.
The NCAA is well aware as to why those two staffers refused to speak and give testimony in this case, and the results of those refusals are not likely to be positive.
Regarding previous cases:
Throughout both the Syracuse and SMU reports, numerous, previous NCAA infractions cases were referenced when explaining why certain decisions/penalties were made. These include (but are not limited to) cases involving USC, Oklahoma, and Purdue.
Analysis:
This helps to further establish the “floor” of penalties that can be expected, as sanctions can be expected (for similar infractions) that are no less than previous NCAA cases.
A discussion of Syracuse’s penalties, and using that information to establish the likely floor of unc’s penalties:
“Therefore, the panel classified this case as Level I – Aggravated. Because of the required more stringent core penalties for a Level I – Aggravated case under Figure 19-1, the panel prescribes appropriate penalties under former NCAA Bylaw 19.5.2.
“The panel prescribed a five-year probationary period as a result of the 10-year period in which the institution permitted violations to occur and lacked control over the administration of the administration of its athletics programs.”
Analysis:
This would strongly suggest that unc is likely looking at a (minimum) five-year probationary period, as well.
Vacation of victories:
“As a result of violations of NCAA legislation student-athletes 1 through 10 became ineligible for competition.”
Analysis:
As has been discussed before, any contest in which an ineligible player participated will be forfeited. For Syracuse, that meant vacating a number of victories from 2004 onward.
Syracuse had 10 athletes affected.
How many has unc had, and for how many sports?
Another consideration to keep in mind:
According to NCAA rules, a student-athlete becomes ineligible from the moment he/she accepts an impermissible benefit onward. That means if a player is determined to have accepted an impermissible benefit halfway through his/her Freshman season, then every contest from that point forward – mid-Freshman-year through Senior year, if applicable – will be retroactively forfeited.
Unless an institution discovers/reports the impermissible benefit while a student-athlete is still in school – and petitions the NCAA for that athlete’s reinstatement – then he/she becomes (and retroactively remains) ineligible from that point-of-infraction forward.
-- Fines:
“Consistent with the fine prescribed for ineligible student-athlete participation in University of Oklahoma, Case No. M351 (2011), the institution (Syracuse) shall pay a fine to the NCAA of $500 per contest played by student-athletes 1 through 10 when they were ineligible to participate.”
Analysis:
If the NCAA maintains this same baseline (established in the 2011 Oklahoma case and then repeated in Syracuse’s case), then the potential overall fines for unc could be staggering.
10 student-athletes were involved in Syracuse’s case. The school was fined $500 PER CONTEST played by each of those athletes.
How many student-athletes will ultimately be deemed ineligible in the unc case (across multiple sports)? 50? 100? More?
And how many contests did each (ineligible) player participate in?
If it was a basketball player with three seasons worth of ineligible participation, for example, that could be 30 games times three seasons, or 90 games total – at $500 apiece – for a total fine of $45,000.
But that is for only one player. What if 50 basketball players (from the years 2002-2011, which the NOA covers) are in the same situation and cost the school a $45,000 fine, apiece?...
Men’s basketball… Football… Women’s basketball… Women’s soccer… Track and Field… other sports?
This is likely an area where a deal could be struck with the university, in my opinion.
-- Of note:
The Committee on Infractions members who comprised the panel that heard Syracuse’s case was:
NCAA COMMITTEE ON INFRACTIONS PANEL
Michael Adams
Britton Banowsky (Chief Hearing Officer)
Thomas Hill
Roscoe C. Howard, Jr.
Joel Maturi
Greg Sankey
Part III...
So what is the takeaway from this analysis?
-- unc will likely be judged on the old penalty matrix/standards.
-- The Syracuse case proved that even under the old standards the penalties can be significant.
-- The overall scope and numbers of the unc case dwarfs the Syracuse case. In terms of the number of student-athletes involved, the number of university staff members who had knowledge of the impermissible benefits, and in terms of the type of academic benefits that were impermissibly given, the unc case is much larger and more egregious.
Because of the above points, a penalty “floor” for unc’s sanctions can safely be established:
-- Overall, unc will not receive less than Syracuse.
The fact that the NCAA heavily referenced past cases when penalizing both Syracuse and SMU means that, consequently, the same will be done when judging unc.
This doesn’t even take into account the lawsuits that some of those other, previously-sanctioned schools would levy towards the NCAA should their schools’ “lighter” infractions end up garnering “heavier” penalties than unc.
Post-season bans
-- At least one year, and likely spanning five or more different sports. Two (or more) years are a distinct possibility given the much larger scope of the infractions.
The fact that several of unc’s programs (men’s basketball; women’s soccer) had direct and tangible postseason benefits (i.e., National Championships) by teams that likely included retroactively-ineligible players, then the possibility of multiple years of postseason bans increases.
Transfer without penalty
-- It would likely take a two (or more) year postseason ban for the NCAA to grant without-penalty transfers for current players.
Loss of scholarships
-- Again, the Syracuse case provides a floor. For smaller-unit teams such as basketball, then the loss of two scholarships a year (following Syracuse’s appeal) for four consecutive years should be the minimum. If the offenses included more players and more widespread benefits, then the scholarships/years could be increased.
Fines, etc.
-- Covered earlier.
Is there a “ceiling” to the potential penalties?
It should be noted that while Syracuse faced penalties under the old, lesser structure, there were still rules that help to guide the COI – and those same rules (as opposed to arbitrary whim on the Committee’s part) will help to determine unc’s eventual penalties.
Specifically, the various bylaws listed under section 19.5.2 (Penalties for Major Violations) of the pre-2012 NCAA handbook give ideas as to what the Committee will be basing its decisions on. Along with, of course, all of the prior cases that have been documented here. I would suggest a thorough reading of that section of bylaws for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of how multiple, serious offenses can carry weighty penalties for an institution. In short, there is no ceiling at this time, only a floor.
///
As with the first post, few inside-information inferences are being made.
Instead, the documented and historical facts above are presented, which should allow conclusions to be drawn without the benefit of innuendo.
The facts, as presented, should be enough to paint a clear picture of what the upcoming sanctions will hold. Or rather, what the “floor” of those sanctions will be.
(And for those who will undoubtedly say that “the above isn’t enough,” just relax.)
Again – the minimum.
So what is the takeaway from this analysis?
-- unc will likely be judged on the old penalty matrix/standards.
-- The Syracuse case proved that even under the old standards the penalties can be significant.
-- The overall scope and numbers of the unc case dwarfs the Syracuse case. In terms of the number of student-athletes involved, the number of university staff members who had knowledge of the impermissible benefits, and in terms of the type of academic benefits that were impermissibly given, the unc case is much larger and more egregious.
Because of the above points, a penalty “floor” for unc’s sanctions can safely be established:
-- Overall, unc will not receive less than Syracuse.
The fact that the NCAA heavily referenced past cases when penalizing both Syracuse and SMU means that, consequently, the same will be done when judging unc.
This doesn’t even take into account the lawsuits that some of those other, previously-sanctioned schools would levy towards the NCAA should their schools’ “lighter” infractions end up garnering “heavier” penalties than unc.
Post-season bans
-- At least one year, and likely spanning five or more different sports. Two (or more) years are a distinct possibility given the much larger scope of the infractions.
The fact that several of unc’s programs (men’s basketball; women’s soccer) had direct and tangible postseason benefits (i.e., National Championships) by teams that likely included retroactively-ineligible players, then the possibility of multiple years of postseason bans increases.
Transfer without penalty
-- It would likely take a two (or more) year postseason ban for the NCAA to grant without-penalty transfers for current players.
Loss of scholarships
-- Again, the Syracuse case provides a floor. For smaller-unit teams such as basketball, then the loss of two scholarships a year (following Syracuse’s appeal) for four consecutive years should be the minimum. If the offenses included more players and more widespread benefits, then the scholarships/years could be increased.
Fines, etc.
-- Covered earlier.
Is there a “ceiling” to the potential penalties?
It should be noted that while Syracuse faced penalties under the old, lesser structure, there were still rules that help to guide the COI – and those same rules (as opposed to arbitrary whim on the Committee’s part) will help to determine unc’s eventual penalties.
Specifically, the various bylaws listed under section 19.5.2 (Penalties for Major Violations) of the pre-2012 NCAA handbook give ideas as to what the Committee will be basing its decisions on. Along with, of course, all of the prior cases that have been documented here. I would suggest a thorough reading of that section of bylaws for anyone who wants a deeper understanding of how multiple, serious offenses can carry weighty penalties for an institution. In short, there is no ceiling at this time, only a floor.
///
As with the first post, few inside-information inferences are being made.
Instead, the documented and historical facts above are presented, which should allow conclusions to be drawn without the benefit of innuendo.
The facts, as presented, should be enough to paint a clear picture of what the upcoming sanctions will hold. Or rather, what the “floor” of those sanctions will be.
(And for those who will undoubtedly say that “the above isn’t enough,” just relax.)
Again – the minimum.
Gotta love it. unx redacts an ENTIRE e-mail from a teacher ( Mutima ) who knew all about the paper class scam. I'm sure there was nuthin' incriminating in there. Lulz...
Everyone knew...
Nyangoro not the only AFAM prof involved...
Even though the scam was developed for men's basketball , has anyone benefited from it as much as women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance? Guy was all about sum cheatin.' Lotsa natties. Lotsa natties wiped from the books...
Ya can't make this stuff up. Boxill's "Ethics" courses were involved. She wrote the textbook required for this course , "Sports Ethics." lulz. One of the topics listed under "Issues" is "Cheating and Violence in Sports." Given her expertise in "cheating" and unx's legacy of thuggery from their athletes , I'm guessin' there was quite a bit of ground to cover there. Lulz...
unx knew some classes didn't count towards a degree...
Everyone knew...
Nyangoro not the only AFAM prof involved...
Even though the scam was developed for men's basketball , has anyone benefited from it as much as women's soccer coach Anson Dorrance? Guy was all about sum cheatin.' Lotsa natties. Lotsa natties wiped from the books...
Ya can't make this stuff up. Boxill's "Ethics" courses were involved. She wrote the textbook required for this course , "Sports Ethics." lulz. One of the topics listed under "Issues" is "Cheating and Violence in Sports." Given her expertise in "cheating" and unx's legacy of thuggery from their athletes , I'm guessin' there was quite a bit of ground to cover there. Lulz...
unx knew some classes didn't count towards a degree...
When educators and those who care about such things as , you know , academic integrity are payin' attention , ya pretty much know you're a poster-child for "cheating." I've quoted Dr. David Ridpath many times. He has no dog in this fight but he always tells it like it is with regards to the unx scandal. A colleague of his , Gerald Gurney , does too...
Gerald Gurney@GeraldGurney1
@BlueDevilicious @DevilDJ32 @dankanenando if the courses didn't count toward a degree, how did the athletes establish eligibility?
Gurney's with The Drake Group. "Academic Integrity in Collegiate Sport..."
http://thedrakegroup.org/authors/gerald-gurney/
Gerald Gurney@GeraldGurney1
@BlueDevilicious @DevilDJ32 @dankanenando if the courses didn't count toward a degree, how did the athletes establish eligibility?
Gurney's with The Drake Group. "Academic Integrity in Collegiate Sport..."
http://thedrakegroup.org/authors/gerald-gurney/
B-Rad. Blocks dissenting opinions and lies his azz off. He also enjoys mocking the opinions of abc'ers yet it's obvious he's following right along. He interjected these tweets in an exchange that never mentioned 'im nor did it have anything to do with 'im. Even hypes his own dumbazz blog. Lulz...
Dennis Shea @DennisG_Shea
Wow, emails tweeted by @DevilDJ32 on unc are just damning. Far beyond a few sports and one department. Pervasive
Reed Miller @ClinicaReed
@DennisG_Shea Is there an article explaining the background on this?
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on incomplete info in emails. Read this: http://coachingthemind.blogspot.com/2015/0...ol-not.html?m=1 …
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea Unverified (http://unverifiedthefilm.com ), a film presenting @BethelLearning's case in support of atheltics, is coming
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@CheatingBlueRam @ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea No, my film is in support of low-level employees whom the media and Wainstein misrepresented.
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@BethelLearning Like Jenn Townsend, Jaime Lee, Beth Bridger?
Cheating Blue Ram@CheatingBlueRam
@yibyabby @DevilDJ32 It seems @BethelLearning is incapable of seeing the bigger picture, which is fault be all, INCLUDING athletics. Then again, had @BethelLearning assigned some responsibility to athletics, his Kickstarter campaign would have failed.
Dennis Shea @DennisG_Shea
Wow, emails tweeted by @DevilDJ32 on unc are just damning. Far beyond a few sports and one department. Pervasive
Reed Miller @ClinicaReed
@DennisG_Shea Is there an article explaining the background on this?
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea Maybe you shouldn't jump to conclusions based on incomplete info in emails. Read this: http://coachingthemind.blogspot.com/2015/0...ol-not.html?m=1 …
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea Unverified (http://unverifiedthefilm.com ), a film presenting @BethelLearning's case in support of atheltics, is coming
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@CheatingBlueRam @ClinicaReed @DennisG_Shea No, my film is in support of low-level employees whom the media and Wainstein misrepresented.
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@BethelLearning Like Jenn Townsend, Jaime Lee, Beth Bridger?
Cheating Blue Ram@CheatingBlueRam
@yibyabby @DevilDJ32 It seems @BethelLearning is incapable of seeing the bigger picture, which is fault be all, INCLUDING athletics. Then again, had @BethelLearning assigned some responsibility to athletics, his Kickstarter campaign would have failed.
The "reality" of oncoming sanctions for unx starting to set in? Grasping at straws/shooting the messenger efforts heating up. "Acceptance" IS the final stage. Lulz. Seems Mary an' Jay were/are canoodling. And? So? unx is not one iota LESS corrupt because of it but this is the kinda thing a hired lackey like Bradley Bethel grasps to when he can't refute the fraud committed by his employer. Pathetic. Check this out...
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
No longer doubt the inappropriate relationship between Jay Smith and Mary Willingham, who are both married: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3OnDyFpkUlMckpycGhSWE8yalU/view
NC Sports Update@NC_SportsUpdate
@BethelLearning Public figures. Relevant to credibility, ethics, contextualizing their actions and corruption. Info needs to come out.
The account that Bethel quotes as if it were gospel? It's called @NCSports_Update. The "Update" has tweeted a whopping nine times. NINE! Lulz. Hasn't been "updating" too much. Lulz. This latest tweet is their first since JULY...when they were begging for followers! Lulz. Hey , nine tweets. None since July. When that account defines "credibility" ya gotta listen , right? LMMFAO at unx and B-freakin-Rad....
North Carolina @ncsportsupdate 9 Jul 2009
First 'tweet'....we need followers!
https://twitter.com/ncsportsupdate
B. Martin@yibyabby
B. Martin Retweeted Coaching the Mind
Really? Talk about "yellow." It's muck. It's vindictive. It's PP/carolinaSux level. It doesn't help your campaign.
DevilDJ @DevilDJ32
@yibyabby #GraspingAtStraws Reality regarding sanctions sinking in? Well,ya know what they say. "Acceptance" is the final stage. lulz. Check @ncsportsupdate . Only NINE tweets. Latest seems to be 1st since JULY! #SockPuppet #stooge
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
Cheating Blue Ram Retweeted B. Martin
What Bethelites fail to understand, attacks on Mary & Jay will not stop the NCAA proceedings nor end SACS probation.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
No longer doubt the inappropriate relationship between Jay Smith and Mary Willingham, who are both married: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B3OnDyFpkUlMckpycGhSWE8yalU/view
NC Sports Update@NC_SportsUpdate
@BethelLearning Public figures. Relevant to credibility, ethics, contextualizing their actions and corruption. Info needs to come out.
The account that Bethel quotes as if it were gospel? It's called @NCSports_Update. The "Update" has tweeted a whopping nine times. NINE! Lulz. Hasn't been "updating" too much. Lulz. This latest tweet is their first since JULY...when they were begging for followers! Lulz. Hey , nine tweets. None since July. When that account defines "credibility" ya gotta listen , right? LMMFAO at unx and B-freakin-Rad....
North Carolina @ncsportsupdate 9 Jul 2009
First 'tweet'....we need followers!
https://twitter.com/ncsportsupdate
B. Martin@yibyabby
B. Martin Retweeted Coaching the Mind
Really? Talk about "yellow." It's muck. It's vindictive. It's PP/carolinaSux level. It doesn't help your campaign.
DevilDJ @DevilDJ32
@yibyabby #GraspingAtStraws Reality regarding sanctions sinking in? Well,ya know what they say. "Acceptance" is the final stage. lulz. Check @ncsportsupdate . Only NINE tweets. Latest seems to be 1st since JULY! #SockPuppet #stooge
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
Cheating Blue Ram Retweeted B. Martin
What Bethelites fail to understand, attacks on Mary & Jay will not stop the NCAA proceedings nor end SACS probation.
Yours truly gets a shout from B-Rad. It's OADD's fault. It started when I posted his memes. I'd have made sure to give proper credit but B-Rad BLOCKED me shortly after I initially posted 'em. Lulz...
B. Martin @yibyabby
Really? Talk about "yellow." It's muck. It's vindictive. It's PP/carolinaSux level. It doesn't help your campaign.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby When they decided to write book in third-person, as if objective scholars, they opened themselves up to critiques of objectivity.
B. Martin@yibyabby
@BethelLearning Rationalization, Bradley. It's no different from PP trying to undermine your campaign by digging up personal crap on you. Paula Coughlin was "whistleblower" in Tailhook scandal; no saint and as involved in shenanigans as court-martialed males.Officers tried character assassination; didn't change the veracity of her claim or cultural failures of naval aviation.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby You're wrong. It's significantly different. They have pretended to be impartial. I am transparent about my perspective. Veracity of claims more easily analyzed when subjectivity of claims acknowledged. Smith & Willingham tried to mask subjectivity.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BethelLearning Do what you feel you need to do. It'll please your existing fans and if nothing else it'll get rid of me as a pest. Because I find it a repulsive tactic and I won't engage with people who resort to it, on either side. Good luck.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby Keep telling yourself that. Few have sunk lower than DevilDJ and CBR, and yet you continue engaging with them. Have a great day.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BethelLearning You're right. But I respected you. I'm done with all of you. Enjoy the mud slinging. See if it helps.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby My tweet was nowhere near level of Pack Pride or carolinaSux. I reported facts without any vulgarity or embellishment.
https://twitter.com/yibyabby
B. Martin @yibyabby
Really? Talk about "yellow." It's muck. It's vindictive. It's PP/carolinaSux level. It doesn't help your campaign.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby When they decided to write book in third-person, as if objective scholars, they opened themselves up to critiques of objectivity.
B. Martin@yibyabby
@BethelLearning Rationalization, Bradley. It's no different from PP trying to undermine your campaign by digging up personal crap on you. Paula Coughlin was "whistleblower" in Tailhook scandal; no saint and as involved in shenanigans as court-martialed males.Officers tried character assassination; didn't change the veracity of her claim or cultural failures of naval aviation.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby You're wrong. It's significantly different. They have pretended to be impartial. I am transparent about my perspective. Veracity of claims more easily analyzed when subjectivity of claims acknowledged. Smith & Willingham tried to mask subjectivity.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BethelLearning Do what you feel you need to do. It'll please your existing fans and if nothing else it'll get rid of me as a pest. Because I find it a repulsive tactic and I won't engage with people who resort to it, on either side. Good luck.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby Keep telling yourself that. Few have sunk lower than DevilDJ and CBR, and yet you continue engaging with them. Have a great day.
B. Martin @yibyabby
@BethelLearning You're right. But I respected you. I'm done with all of you. Enjoy the mud slinging. See if it helps.
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@yibyabby My tweet was nowhere near level of Pack Pride or carolinaSux. I reported facts without any vulgarity or embellishment.
https://twitter.com/yibyabby
Interesting that B-Rad claims his doc will expose the "sensationalism" involved with reporting the news ( particularly the unx scandal ) yet he salivates over the opportunity...
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc Did I see an email from Mary that told Jay she loved him? Researching again.
Coaching the Mind@BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Let me know if you find that.
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc "LOVE THE OFFER, AND YOU" http://www.wral.com/search-thousands-of-unc-scandal-records/15030171/#172407 …
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Good work. Just think: there are still many emails not included in this release.
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc have they responded to any of your FOIA requests for emails?
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Not yet.
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc Did I see an email from Mary that told Jay she loved him? Researching again.
Coaching the Mind@BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Let me know if you find that.
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc "LOVE THE OFFER, AND YOU" http://www.wral.com/search-thousands-of-unc-scandal-records/15030171/#172407 …
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Good work. Just think: there are still many emails not included in this release.
JP @GoHeelsJP
@BethelLearning @talunc have they responded to any of your FOIA requests for emails?
Coaching the Mind @BethelLearning
@GoHeelsJP @talunc Not yet.
At unc, abdicating the obligations of leadership in scandal
When we spend millions on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers
So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade
Like many, I was distressed, though not surprised, that unc-CH has spent north of $10 million on public relations consultants and lawyers to deal with our academic and athletic scandals. I suppose this is what the aspiration to “run the university like a business” looks like.
Over $5 million went to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The folks at Skadden, Arps got a couple million more. We paid $1.3 million to Bond, Schoeneck & King; another million to Baker, Tilly. Almost double that amount went to Edelman, a giant PR outfit, offering expertise on “corporate reputation management.” FleishmanHillard raked in almost $400,000. You’d think the Old Well had relocated to Madison Avenue.
High-dollar outside investigators were reportedly necessary because, after years of stonewalling and false assurance, no one would believe an analysis conducted by the administration. A campus public relations officer explained, enthusiastically, that the millions to Edelman were spent to “support our management of media relations, content creation and internal communication.” FleishmanHillard’s website boasts it is “the most complete communications agency in the world, capable of reaching any audience, with any message, through any channel.” Praise the Lord. The new carolina Way revealed.
There are, I suppose, millions of things that could be said of this. I limit myself to two.
First, at the end of every story about unc’s breathtaking expenditures, the same concluding assurance appears. “Officials say that none of these legal and public relations bills are paid for by tuition or state appropriations.” The money comes from the private unc Foundation. Not to worry.
This is, at best, only half the story. Much money given to the university is designated for a specific purpose – to create scholarships for needy students, to build new classroom facilities, to support professorships in the arts, and the like.
The dollars used to pay PR flacks and branding specialists, on the other hand, must come from undesignated gifts. Surely no donor has established a fund to help the chancellor decide and articulate what the university stands for. I’m guessing it never before would have been thought necessary.
When we spend $10 million or $15 million on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers. I’ve never heard the university admit this. So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade.
Second, when did we decide to routinely outsource the obligations of leadership? Chapel Hill has a very robust legion of well-provided for administrators. We have a chancellor and a provost. Each has a bountiful array of associates. They are supported by a hefty public relations team and a first-rate group of lawyers.
Still, these days, whenever we face a significant challenge, we assume the need to hire a bevy of the nation’s highest-paid consultants to teach us how to behave like a decent institution. Having abdicated the obligations of leadership, we seem to think wisdom, character and savvy can be purchased. It’s not working.
Our greatest chancellor, William B. Aycock, died a few months ago. Dealing with crises like the Dixie Classic and the Speaker Ban, Aycock saw his share of trouble. Still, he never considered hiring “the most complete communications agency in the world.”
Thinking of Aycock, it’s easy to envision two distinct approaches to leadership and problem solving. In the first, decision-makers sit around a huge table in South Building. There is a chancellor and her cadre of assistants. And then a provost and his sizable group. Add to that our internal public relations team. And our external PR posse. Then there are internal and external groups of lawyers. As I said, it’s a big table.
They work for days, or weeks, responding to a crisis. Eventually a decision is made, and the group produces a statement to be issued by the chancellor. The final product is so chockablock with doublespeak that faculty members jokingly circulate email translations for the bureaucratically unschooled.
In the other model, Aycock returns to his campus office late in the evening after having had dinner with his family. He has consulted with university officials throughout the day. Now he sits behind his desk, a small lamp providing illumination. He makes the toughest decisions. And with pen and yellow legal pad, he explains them to the university community and to the people of North carolina.
The first model, of course, costs millions. The second, a relative pittance. But the cheap route would outperform the big boys every time.
Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor at unc-Chapel Hill.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article46787900.html
When we spend millions on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers
So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade
Like many, I was distressed, though not surprised, that unc-CH has spent north of $10 million on public relations consultants and lawyers to deal with our academic and athletic scandals. I suppose this is what the aspiration to “run the university like a business” looks like.
Over $5 million went to Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft. The folks at Skadden, Arps got a couple million more. We paid $1.3 million to Bond, Schoeneck & King; another million to Baker, Tilly. Almost double that amount went to Edelman, a giant PR outfit, offering expertise on “corporate reputation management.” FleishmanHillard raked in almost $400,000. You’d think the Old Well had relocated to Madison Avenue.
High-dollar outside investigators were reportedly necessary because, after years of stonewalling and false assurance, no one would believe an analysis conducted by the administration. A campus public relations officer explained, enthusiastically, that the millions to Edelman were spent to “support our management of media relations, content creation and internal communication.” FleishmanHillard’s website boasts it is “the most complete communications agency in the world, capable of reaching any audience, with any message, through any channel.” Praise the Lord. The new carolina Way revealed.
There are, I suppose, millions of things that could be said of this. I limit myself to two.
First, at the end of every story about unc’s breathtaking expenditures, the same concluding assurance appears. “Officials say that none of these legal and public relations bills are paid for by tuition or state appropriations.” The money comes from the private unc Foundation. Not to worry.
This is, at best, only half the story. Much money given to the university is designated for a specific purpose – to create scholarships for needy students, to build new classroom facilities, to support professorships in the arts, and the like.
The dollars used to pay PR flacks and branding specialists, on the other hand, must come from undesignated gifts. Surely no donor has established a fund to help the chancellor decide and articulate what the university stands for. I’m guessing it never before would have been thought necessary.
When we spend $10 million or $15 million on the nation’s most expensive lawyers and corporate consultants, we deploy funds that could have supported impoverished carolina Covenant students, or increased skimpy graduate student stipends, or raised the salaries of maintenance workers. I’ve never heard the university admit this. So enough with the “it’s only private money” charade.
Second, when did we decide to routinely outsource the obligations of leadership? Chapel Hill has a very robust legion of well-provided for administrators. We have a chancellor and a provost. Each has a bountiful array of associates. They are supported by a hefty public relations team and a first-rate group of lawyers.
Still, these days, whenever we face a significant challenge, we assume the need to hire a bevy of the nation’s highest-paid consultants to teach us how to behave like a decent institution. Having abdicated the obligations of leadership, we seem to think wisdom, character and savvy can be purchased. It’s not working.
Our greatest chancellor, William B. Aycock, died a few months ago. Dealing with crises like the Dixie Classic and the Speaker Ban, Aycock saw his share of trouble. Still, he never considered hiring “the most complete communications agency in the world.”
Thinking of Aycock, it’s easy to envision two distinct approaches to leadership and problem solving. In the first, decision-makers sit around a huge table in South Building. There is a chancellor and her cadre of assistants. And then a provost and his sizable group. Add to that our internal public relations team. And our external PR posse. Then there are internal and external groups of lawyers. As I said, it’s a big table.
They work for days, or weeks, responding to a crisis. Eventually a decision is made, and the group produces a statement to be issued by the chancellor. The final product is so chockablock with doublespeak that faculty members jokingly circulate email translations for the bureaucratically unschooled.
In the other model, Aycock returns to his campus office late in the evening after having had dinner with his family. He has consulted with university officials throughout the day. Now he sits behind his desk, a small lamp providing illumination. He makes the toughest decisions. And with pen and yellow legal pad, he explains them to the university community and to the people of North carolina.
The first model, of course, costs millions. The second, a relative pittance. But the cheap route would outperform the big boys every time.
Gene Nichol is Boyd Tinsley Distinguished Professor at unc-Chapel Hill.
http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article46787900.html
What punishment does Fed mete out for this? Assaults and felonious property damage usually get wrist-slaps...if that. This guy doesn't play much so he probably gets kicked off the team...
UNC football player arrested, charged with assault
A University of North Carolina football player was charged with assault Sunday morning in connection with an incident involving a bouncer at a Raleigh nightclub.
According to authorities, Tyreece (T.J.) Jiles was arrested at about 3 a.m. near the Mirage Night Club at 400 N. West St. in downtown Raleigh.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-football-player-arrested-charged-with-assault/15142665/
UNC football player arrested, charged with assault
A University of North Carolina football player was charged with assault Sunday morning in connection with an incident involving a bouncer at a Raleigh nightclub.
According to authorities, Tyreece (T.J.) Jiles was arrested at about 3 a.m. near the Mirage Night Club at 400 N. West St. in downtown Raleigh.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/unc-football-player-arrested-charged-with-assault/15142665/
B-Rad just received a ton of FOIA requests he made. The main purpose of those requests is to , obviously , try and discredit Mary and Jay. Instead , they show support from some faculty and even ATHLETES. Mike Paulus..
More professors...
More professors...
- Status
