The Carolina Way VIII
- Thread starter DevilDJ
- Start date
- Status
WOW...what a loser. Maybe he should be taking care of his family, instead of $h!tting his life away trying to defend a bunch of cheaters.
OFC
unx still checking to see if classes are actually IN the classrooms they're supposed to be in and if anyone's , ya know , actually IN the class. Monitoring the material too. Just another of the "70 reforms." Most unx'ers don't cop to any wrongdoing. Why the reforms then? Also...it should be humiliating for anyone at unx to have to do this kinda crap. Instead , they add it to their "carolina commitment" and brag about it. Lord Amighty , just burn the damn place to the ground. What a sheet-hole...
Provost's office checks up on lectures
This story is part of a series from The Daily Tar Heel examining the more than 70 reforms the University has said were made since information about the academic-athletic scandal came to light in 2010.The complete list of reforms can be found on carolinacommitment.unc.edu.
The provost’s office began checking up on classes in fall 2013, but only 8 to 12 percent of classes per school are observed every semester.
As UNC’s academic-athletic scandal came to light, the provost started requiring classroom visits to ensure lecture courses are meeting on schedule.
“This audit is about making sure that if a class is listed as group instruction, and it has a schedule that is published by the registrar, then we check to make sure that people actually are in the class, and there’s instruction going on in that class,” said Lynn Williford, assistant provost for institutional research and assessment.
University Registrar Chris Derickson said courses that don’t follow the structure of a lecture class are allowed at UNC, but they must be listed as independent studies.
“If they’re lecture classes, they need to be conducted as lecture classes,” he said. “This isn’t saying that an independent study is of any less value ... independent studies are really rewarding ways to work directly with a faculty member, but those need to be advertised as such.”
Williford said classroom visits are meant to catch any classes that might not be operating correctly, but she said only around 8 to 12 percent of classes in each school are visited.
“We take a representative sample of their courses that meet the criteria — that are traditional lecture courses,” she said.
Williford said because of the large number of lecture classes at UNC, it is not possible to require visits to all of them.
“We had to figure out a way to do this that was sound but reasonable in order to have these feel that it was a valid method,” she said.
Classes are selected at random once a semester for each sample. Before visits are conducted, the provost’s office checks over the samples to make sure they’re representative of each college or school. Instructors are not notified whether their classes are going to be evaluated.
Williford said the provost’s office has never found any lecture classes that were not being taught as expected.
“It’s not necessarily pretty or maybe the most efficient way to do things, but when you’re dealing with a scandal like the University had to, we wanted to make sure we had addressed every issue that was raised in those reports,” Derickson said.
Brandon Wheeler, a first-year biology major, said to his knowledge, none of his classes have ever been visited. He said he thinks UNC is making progress since the scandal.
“I think any movement now is in the right direction,” he said. “That’s at least movement in the right direction.”
Derickson said the University is still searching for better ways to survey the thousands of lecture classes being held at UNC.
“We continue to look for more efficient ways to handle this, whether it be through the classroom evaluation at the end, asking about how the class was conducted, stuff like that,” he said.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/04/carolina-committment-0415
Provost's office checks up on lectures
This story is part of a series from The Daily Tar Heel examining the more than 70 reforms the University has said were made since information about the academic-athletic scandal came to light in 2010.The complete list of reforms can be found on carolinacommitment.unc.edu.
The provost’s office began checking up on classes in fall 2013, but only 8 to 12 percent of classes per school are observed every semester.
As UNC’s academic-athletic scandal came to light, the provost started requiring classroom visits to ensure lecture courses are meeting on schedule.
“This audit is about making sure that if a class is listed as group instruction, and it has a schedule that is published by the registrar, then we check to make sure that people actually are in the class, and there’s instruction going on in that class,” said Lynn Williford, assistant provost for institutional research and assessment.
University Registrar Chris Derickson said courses that don’t follow the structure of a lecture class are allowed at UNC, but they must be listed as independent studies.
“If they’re lecture classes, they need to be conducted as lecture classes,” he said. “This isn’t saying that an independent study is of any less value ... independent studies are really rewarding ways to work directly with a faculty member, but those need to be advertised as such.”
Williford said classroom visits are meant to catch any classes that might not be operating correctly, but she said only around 8 to 12 percent of classes in each school are visited.
“We take a representative sample of their courses that meet the criteria — that are traditional lecture courses,” she said.
Williford said because of the large number of lecture classes at UNC, it is not possible to require visits to all of them.
“We had to figure out a way to do this that was sound but reasonable in order to have these feel that it was a valid method,” she said.
Classes are selected at random once a semester for each sample. Before visits are conducted, the provost’s office checks over the samples to make sure they’re representative of each college or school. Instructors are not notified whether their classes are going to be evaluated.
Williford said the provost’s office has never found any lecture classes that were not being taught as expected.
“It’s not necessarily pretty or maybe the most efficient way to do things, but when you’re dealing with a scandal like the University had to, we wanted to make sure we had addressed every issue that was raised in those reports,” Derickson said.
Brandon Wheeler, a first-year biology major, said to his knowledge, none of his classes have ever been visited. He said he thinks UNC is making progress since the scandal.
“I think any movement now is in the right direction,” he said. “That’s at least movement in the right direction.”
Derickson said the University is still searching for better ways to survey the thousands of lecture classes being held at UNC.
“We continue to look for more efficient ways to handle this, whether it be through the classroom evaluation at the end, asking about how the class was conducted, stuff like that,” he said.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/04/carolina-committment-0415
Page 79...
Implementation of Academic Process Documentation and Assessment Activities
Led by Provost Dean and Athletics Director Cunningham, the group consisted of a 10-person team of faculty and administrators, including:
• James W. Dean, Jr., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Lawrence (Bubba) Cunningham, Athletics Director
• Anna Agbe-Davies, Assistant Professor, Anthropology
• Lissa Broome, Distinguished Professor, School of Law; Faculty Athletics Representative
• Michelle Brown, Assistant Provost and Director of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes
• Deborah Clarke, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Stephen Farmer, Vice Provost, Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions
• Vince Ille, Senior Associate Athletic Director
• James Johnson, Distinguished Professor, Kenan-Flagler Business School
• Andrew Perrin, Professor, Sociology
http://oira.unc.edu/files/2016/04/UNC-Chapel-Hill-First-Monitoring-Report.pdf
Some jock-sniffers on this "working group." Perrin , Ille , Broome , Bubba and Dean are all firmly entrenched up Roy and Fed's azzes. Jay Smith's opines...
French history professor Jay Smith, a critic of the school's handling of the scandal, attended earlier group meetings. He is "waiting skeptically" for its recommendations while saying it appears to be doing "busy work."
"For now, I'm willing to suspend judgment," Smith said. "I am eager to see what they come up with. ... If they come out with some series of bold statements and point UNC and perhaps even the national configuration of Division I institutions in a new direction, then I will applaud them.
"But I continue to find puzzling the unwillingness of so many people at this university — including people on that committee — to address head-on the evidence of corruption that we've seen rise to the surface thanks to reporting for the most part over the past three years."
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/...ill-working-to-rethink-support-structure.html
I also ran across this lil tidbit about the "working group" from 2014. 'Nuff said...
The group's decision to leave the class-checking to the athletic department was appreciated by Cunningham, who acknowledged the reality of attendance problem within the athletic department.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/06/student-athlete-academic-initiatives-working-group
Implementation of Academic Process Documentation and Assessment Activities
Led by Provost Dean and Athletics Director Cunningham, the group consisted of a 10-person team of faculty and administrators, including:
• James W. Dean, Jr., Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Lawrence (Bubba) Cunningham, Athletics Director
• Anna Agbe-Davies, Assistant Professor, Anthropology
• Lissa Broome, Distinguished Professor, School of Law; Faculty Athletics Representative
• Michelle Brown, Assistant Provost and Director of the Academic Support Program for Student-Athletes
• Deborah Clarke, Office of the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost
• Stephen Farmer, Vice Provost, Enrollment and Undergraduate Admissions
• Vince Ille, Senior Associate Athletic Director
• James Johnson, Distinguished Professor, Kenan-Flagler Business School
• Andrew Perrin, Professor, Sociology
http://oira.unc.edu/files/2016/04/UNC-Chapel-Hill-First-Monitoring-Report.pdf
Some jock-sniffers on this "working group." Perrin , Ille , Broome , Bubba and Dean are all firmly entrenched up Roy and Fed's azzes. Jay Smith's opines...
French history professor Jay Smith, a critic of the school's handling of the scandal, attended earlier group meetings. He is "waiting skeptically" for its recommendations while saying it appears to be doing "busy work."
"For now, I'm willing to suspend judgment," Smith said. "I am eager to see what they come up with. ... If they come out with some series of bold statements and point UNC and perhaps even the national configuration of Division I institutions in a new direction, then I will applaud them.
"But I continue to find puzzling the unwillingness of so many people at this university — including people on that committee — to address head-on the evidence of corruption that we've seen rise to the surface thanks to reporting for the most part over the past three years."
http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2014/...ill-working-to-rethink-support-structure.html
I also ran across this lil tidbit about the "working group" from 2014. 'Nuff said...
The group's decision to leave the class-checking to the athletic department was appreciated by Cunningham, who acknowledged the reality of attendance problem within the athletic department.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2014/06/student-athlete-academic-initiatives-working-group
Mrs. Bethel. Works at Duke. LinkedIn...
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracy-bethel-34ab8051
Twitter...
https://twitter.com/tracydhbethel
https://www.linkedin.com/in/tracy-bethel-34ab8051
Twitter...
https://twitter.com/tracydhbethel
UNC posts first monitoring report, defends integrity for accrediting agency
Acquiescing to a requirement from the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, the University posted its first monitoring report regarding the accreditation bylaws that were broken during the nearly 20-year academic-athletic scandal.
The accrediting agency requested the University complete a monitoring report about its compliance with the seven broken accrediting standards that the association did not accept the University's explanation for at the association's meeting last June.
This first section of the 146-page report focuses on the University's integrity, which the association questioned because of the academic-athletic scandal.
UNC highlighted the report done by the Integrity and Ethics Working Group, which was formed after the Wainstein report in October 2014, as well as the creation of the Chief Integrity and Policy Officer.
"These documents go well beyond the information sought by the Commission and evidence the extraordinary — indeed unparalleled — lengths to which the University has gone to ensure complete institutional integrity," the monitoring report said about the working group's report.
The other six association bylaws that required responses from UNC ranged from questions about the curriculum of the African, African American and Diaspora Department to faculty's role in University governance.
The University was placed on a one-year probation by the association last June. The president of the association, Belle Wheelan, has said UNC's scandal was "the biggest case of academic fraud" she had ever seen in her tenure.
The association will determine the University's status this summer at its annual meeting.
http://www.dailytarheel.com/article/2016/04/unc-posts-first-monitoring-report-for-accrediting-board
“This audit is about making sure that if a class is listed as group instruction, and it has a schedule that is published by the registrar, then we check to make sure that people actually are in the class, and there’s instruction going on in that class,” said Lynn Williford, assistant provost for institutional research and assessment.
http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/o0hfFXl.jpg
Last edited:
I wonder what percent of the classes they monitor are ones where basketball (men and women's) and football players are on the class roster?
From the DTH link...
“We take a representative sample of their courses that meet the criteria — that are traditional lecture courses,” she said.
Classes are selected at random once a semester for each sample.
THIS^^^ is the problem ( or one of 'em ) at unx. Everything goes thru tptb. unx talks of "independent reviews" and "transparency" yet has neither. What's a "representative sample?" Who's to say? Oh yeah. I forgot. unx says. "Random?" What does that even mean? So ALL courses and ALL sports programs are thrown in a hat for a drawing?" Are the monitors looking for , say , anyone on the women's GOLF team to make sure they're in class? Or are they just checking up on the instructors? unx has already tried to spin this as an "academic scandal." Keepin' a tighter watch on those predatory profs? And according to the story , only 8 to 12 percent get checked anyway. Heck , ex-tarhole Melvin Scott was one of those doing the checking. Fox guardin' the henhouse , much? Again , further examples of unx corruption and arrogance. Busted for decades of cheating and they still want the public to buy into the notion they can be trusted to put their house in order. Ya can't make this stuff up. One of the profs there ( Margolis? ) publicly resented the fact the academicians have someone lookin' over their shoulder when THEY aren't the problem....and he's justified. Talking heads betch about having so many classes to monitor when they really don't. Check Roy and Fed's guys. They might wanna take a gander at Sylvia's , Anson's and Fox's players to from time to time but we all know who needs watchin.' the most.
B. Martin @yibyabby
Why did UNC really enlist Wainstein? I've read and heard several different answers other than UNC's own explanation:
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was hiring Wainstein about finding the truth, once and for all? Esse Quam Videri?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was it negative PR and media pressure that goaded Tom Ross and Carol Folt into hiring Wainstein?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was Wainstein hired to scapegoat lower-level employees & get past scandal, insulating faculty deans and leadership?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Or was that just an unintended outcome of hiring Wainstein, but which UNC leaders embraced for their own purposes?
B. Martin @yibyabby
There's always the "exotic animal" theory rival fans believe: that UNC thought it could control Wainstein, but he got loose. And the theory of some defending fans: that elements of NC BOG exercised political pressure to force UNC's hand that led to hiring Wainstein.
Why did UNC really enlist Wainstein? I've read and heard several different answers other than UNC's own explanation:
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was hiring Wainstein about finding the truth, once and for all? Esse Quam Videri?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was it negative PR and media pressure that goaded Tom Ross and Carol Folt into hiring Wainstein?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Was Wainstein hired to scapegoat lower-level employees & get past scandal, insulating faculty deans and leadership?
B. Martin @yibyabby
Or was that just an unintended outcome of hiring Wainstein, but which UNC leaders embraced for their own purposes?
B. Martin @yibyabby
There's always the "exotic animal" theory rival fans believe: that UNC thought it could control Wainstein, but he got loose. And the theory of some defending fans: that elements of NC BOG exercised political pressure to force UNC's hand that led to hiring Wainstein.
Dan Kane...
NCAA considers new rules regarding academic misconduct
Changes would be first to academic integrity rules since 1983
Proposed rules would require member schools to have academic integrity standards
Changes come as NCAA deals with UNC scandal
he NCAA is expected to approve new rules later this month that would give it more authority to pursue cases of academic misconduct, reforms three years in the making but placed in the spotlight by the scandal involving athletes at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The proposed rules would require all Division I member schools to create their own academic misconduct policies for all students. That keeps the NCAA from having to make the call whether misconduct took place – something its member schools have adamantly opposed – while giving it the authority to cite the misconduct in leveling violations involving athletics.
The proposed rules, the first regarding academic integrity since 1983, also create a new category of violations for “impermissible academic assistance.” These are cases in which athletes receive academic help beyond what other students receive, or a member school falsely claims academic misconduct didn’t take place in a matter that benefited athletes.
The new rules would not impact the NCAA’s case against UNC, where a fake class scheme involved more than 3,100 students over an 18-year period. Nearly all of the classes were offered and graded by an African studies department office manager who wasn’t a professor.
Roughly half of the students were athletes, particularly football and men’s and women’s basketball players. An investigation found the fraud started after academic counselors to the athletes complained about regular meetings and progress reports for independent study classes.
Carolyn Callahan, a University of Virginia education professor who served on the NCAA committee that drew up the rules, said they replace academic misconduct regulations that are vague and difficult to enforce. As a result, the NCAA often uses an “impermissible benefit” regulation that was originally intended for cases in which athletes receive cars, cash or trips.
“There was nowhere that people could really find a clear consolidated place for academic issues,” said Callahan, who is also the university’s faculty athletic representative.
The NCAA has used the impermissible benefits regulations to build a case against UNC, alleging five major violations in a notice delivered 11 months ago. UNC is expecting a new notice within the next few weeks that is expected to incorporate evidence of additional allegations involving women’s basketball.
Callahan said the proposed rules are not in response to the UNC scandal, though the work began as the word about it was spreading.
The NCAA’s Division I board of directors is expected to approve the proposed academic integrity rules April 28. The rules have already cleared several NCAA committees.
Criticism from Duncan
The scandal has become a focal point in the college sports debate. It drew sustained national attention as the UNC men’s basketball team made its way to the NCAA championship game only to lose to Villanova on a buzzer-beater.
Last month, a Showtime 60 Minutes Sports report featured former U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s criticism of UNC and its basketball program. Duncan recently joined the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics as a vice-chairman.
“I just think about those young men who the vast majority are probably first generation in their family having the chance to go to college, and the chance not to just play basketball in North Carolina but the chance to get a degree from the University of North Carolina,” Duncan said. “That’s a life-transforming opportunity. And the fact they were denied that chance is mindboggling. It’s mindboggling. And they were denied it systemically, systematically. This was part of the University of North Carolina basketball system.”
UNC administrative and athletic officials say the basketball program wasn’t complicit in the scandal. The NCAA’s notice of allegations reported that men’s basketball players were among the top three teams that received impermissible benefits, but it did not accuse basketball officials or staff of wrongdoing.
Duncan said the coaches should bear responsibility for the fake classes that occurred under their watch.
“Who cares (whether they knew)?” he said. “That’s the problem. They’re above the law.”
Not strict enough?
Some critics find the proposed rules to be not much more than a face-saving gesture after the NCAA did little to investigate the academic fraud at UNC for nearly three years.
Gerald Gurney is a University of Oklahoma professor and president of The Drake Group, which advocates for academic integrity in college sports. He said the NCAA is “desperately” trying to minimize its role on the academic side.
“The NCAA by doing so sends a message to all institutions, and that is ‘We’ll leave it up to you,’ ” Gurney said. “And North Carolina is a prime example of the inability of college presidents and athletic programs and college administrators to adequately control academic integrity in athletics. There is too much money at stake here.”
Callahan said it’s virtually impossible for the NCAA to judge academic standards for every member university. That includes making the call whether a class without an instructor – a key contributor to UNC’s fake classes – constitutes a real class.
“The NCAA clearly leaves any judgment about quality of classes, quality of educational programs, to the accrediting agencies because the accrediting agencies are responsible for the educational quality of the programs offered,” she said.
The agency that accredits UNC has placed it on probation for several violations of standards, including academic integrity and control over its sports programs.
The NCAA’s proposed academic integrity rules also come as UNC faces two federal lawsuits by former athletes who say they were steered into the fake classes and deprived of a meaningful education in order to focus on athletics.
The lawsuits, including one that names the NCAA as a co-defendant, are scheduled for preliminary arguments on Tuesday in Winston-Salem. The judge’s ruling could determine whether the cases are dismissed or allowed to continue with access to witnesses and documents.
The NCAA’s position that academic misconduct decisions should be left to member schools will likely draw scrutiny in both cases.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article72234912.html
NCAA considers new rules regarding academic misconduct
Changes would be first to academic integrity rules since 1983
Proposed rules would require member schools to have academic integrity standards
Changes come as NCAA deals with UNC scandal
he NCAA is expected to approve new rules later this month that would give it more authority to pursue cases of academic misconduct, reforms three years in the making but placed in the spotlight by the scandal involving athletes at UNC-Chapel Hill.
The proposed rules would require all Division I member schools to create their own academic misconduct policies for all students. That keeps the NCAA from having to make the call whether misconduct took place – something its member schools have adamantly opposed – while giving it the authority to cite the misconduct in leveling violations involving athletics.
The proposed rules, the first regarding academic integrity since 1983, also create a new category of violations for “impermissible academic assistance.” These are cases in which athletes receive academic help beyond what other students receive, or a member school falsely claims academic misconduct didn’t take place in a matter that benefited athletes.
The new rules would not impact the NCAA’s case against UNC, where a fake class scheme involved more than 3,100 students over an 18-year period. Nearly all of the classes were offered and graded by an African studies department office manager who wasn’t a professor.
Roughly half of the students were athletes, particularly football and men’s and women’s basketball players. An investigation found the fraud started after academic counselors to the athletes complained about regular meetings and progress reports for independent study classes.
Carolyn Callahan, a University of Virginia education professor who served on the NCAA committee that drew up the rules, said they replace academic misconduct regulations that are vague and difficult to enforce. As a result, the NCAA often uses an “impermissible benefit” regulation that was originally intended for cases in which athletes receive cars, cash or trips.
“There was nowhere that people could really find a clear consolidated place for academic issues,” said Callahan, who is also the university’s faculty athletic representative.
The NCAA has used the impermissible benefits regulations to build a case against UNC, alleging five major violations in a notice delivered 11 months ago. UNC is expecting a new notice within the next few weeks that is expected to incorporate evidence of additional allegations involving women’s basketball.
Callahan said the proposed rules are not in response to the UNC scandal, though the work began as the word about it was spreading.
The NCAA’s Division I board of directors is expected to approve the proposed academic integrity rules April 28. The rules have already cleared several NCAA committees.
Criticism from Duncan
The scandal has become a focal point in the college sports debate. It drew sustained national attention as the UNC men’s basketball team made its way to the NCAA championship game only to lose to Villanova on a buzzer-beater.
Last month, a Showtime 60 Minutes Sports report featured former U.S. Education Secretary Arne Duncan’s criticism of UNC and its basketball program. Duncan recently joined the Knight Commission on Intercollegiate Athletics as a vice-chairman.
“I just think about those young men who the vast majority are probably first generation in their family having the chance to go to college, and the chance not to just play basketball in North Carolina but the chance to get a degree from the University of North Carolina,” Duncan said. “That’s a life-transforming opportunity. And the fact they were denied that chance is mindboggling. It’s mindboggling. And they were denied it systemically, systematically. This was part of the University of North Carolina basketball system.”
UNC administrative and athletic officials say the basketball program wasn’t complicit in the scandal. The NCAA’s notice of allegations reported that men’s basketball players were among the top three teams that received impermissible benefits, but it did not accuse basketball officials or staff of wrongdoing.
Duncan said the coaches should bear responsibility for the fake classes that occurred under their watch.
“Who cares (whether they knew)?” he said. “That’s the problem. They’re above the law.”
Not strict enough?
Some critics find the proposed rules to be not much more than a face-saving gesture after the NCAA did little to investigate the academic fraud at UNC for nearly three years.
Gerald Gurney is a University of Oklahoma professor and president of The Drake Group, which advocates for academic integrity in college sports. He said the NCAA is “desperately” trying to minimize its role on the academic side.
“The NCAA by doing so sends a message to all institutions, and that is ‘We’ll leave it up to you,’ ” Gurney said. “And North Carolina is a prime example of the inability of college presidents and athletic programs and college administrators to adequately control academic integrity in athletics. There is too much money at stake here.”
Callahan said it’s virtually impossible for the NCAA to judge academic standards for every member university. That includes making the call whether a class without an instructor – a key contributor to UNC’s fake classes – constitutes a real class.
“The NCAA clearly leaves any judgment about quality of classes, quality of educational programs, to the accrediting agencies because the accrediting agencies are responsible for the educational quality of the programs offered,” she said.
The agency that accredits UNC has placed it on probation for several violations of standards, including academic integrity and control over its sports programs.
The NCAA’s proposed academic integrity rules also come as UNC faces two federal lawsuits by former athletes who say they were steered into the fake classes and deprived of a meaningful education in order to focus on athletics.
The lawsuits, including one that names the NCAA as a co-defendant, are scheduled for preliminary arguments on Tuesday in Winston-Salem. The judge’s ruling could determine whether the cases are dismissed or allowed to continue with access to witnesses and documents.
The NCAA’s position that academic misconduct decisions should be left to member schools will likely draw scrutiny in both cases.
http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article72234912.html
Posted: Today 3:20 PM Re: Scandal v.7774 -- SACS response pg. 30 Post Rating (1 vote)
redmoonrising
Noob
Rating: 3.0/5 this site
232 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
Not sure if this deserves a new topic, but I have heard from friend at NCAA, UNC was to have received their report Friday, April 15, 2016. Guessing they are withholding until they have the weekend to review. Wish the news would ask them directly!
redmoonrising
Noob
Rating: 3.0/5 this site
232 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
Not sure if this deserves a new topic, but I have heard from friend at NCAA, UNC was to have received their report Friday, April 15, 2016. Guessing they are withholding until they have the weekend to review. Wish the news would ask them directly!
Last edited:
On The Record: No room for cheating in NCAA
Call this an exercise in tilting at windmills.
Before college basketball’s season gets too far behind us, what in the good name of James Naismith was North Carolina and Syracuse doing in the NCAA Tournament, let alone the Final Four?
But, there they were, two programs venerated for their on-court successes.
And two programs that, according to NCAA findings, are two of the biggest perpetrators of rules violations that benefited their respective programs in the college basketball world.
And, then we have North Carolina with even more severe violations, although sanctions have yet to be determined.
Athletes at the school, many from the men’s basketball team, were allegedly enrolled in fraudulent classes that did not require attendance and were graded purely on a papers that others wrote for the athletes.
Over an 18-year period, 3,100 students took those classes, 47 percent of them athletes.
Among those was Rashad McCants, the Tarheels’ second-leading scorer on the 2004-05 national championship team. He has told media outlets that tutors wrote his term papers and he rarely went to class for about half his time at UNC, remaining eligible only because he took bogus classes.
McCants told ESPN that he, and others, would have been academically ineligible to play during the championship season without the assistance.
McCants also claimed that his coach, Roy Williams, had full knowledge of the fraudulent classes. McCants said that he even made the dean’s list in the spring of 2005 depute not attending any of his four classes for which he received straight-A grades.
Although there has yet to be punishment handed down to North Carolina’s athletic program, investigators have found the system of academic fraud at the school dates back at least 18 years.
To sum up: academic fraud at both schools, illegal payments, ignoring drug-testing results ... and both schools’ men’s basketball teams played in this year’s Final Four.
It is, of course, all about money. Programs like North Carolina, Syracuse and dozens of others at the sport’s highest level will do everything they can to win games.
Wonder why programs “cheat” to keep winning? Syracuse’s annual profit from its basketball program is close to $13 million annually. North Carolina’s is about $11 million annually. A little academic fraud won’t hurt those bottom lines.
In a perfect world, infractions incurred by North Carolina and Syracuse should result in the NCAA “death penalty,” shutting down those programs and numerous others for a year or two.
Instead, we have to watch the cheaters (and, no apologies to Boeheim for that particular terminology) play in the Final Four earlier this month, the sport’s biggest stage.
James Naismith would be ashamed. We should be, too.
http://www.saratogian.com/sports/20160416/on-the-record-no-room-for-cheating-in-ncaa
Call this an exercise in tilting at windmills.
Before college basketball’s season gets too far behind us, what in the good name of James Naismith was North Carolina and Syracuse doing in the NCAA Tournament, let alone the Final Four?
But, there they were, two programs venerated for their on-court successes.
And two programs that, according to NCAA findings, are two of the biggest perpetrators of rules violations that benefited their respective programs in the college basketball world.
And, then we have North Carolina with even more severe violations, although sanctions have yet to be determined.
Athletes at the school, many from the men’s basketball team, were allegedly enrolled in fraudulent classes that did not require attendance and were graded purely on a papers that others wrote for the athletes.
Over an 18-year period, 3,100 students took those classes, 47 percent of them athletes.
Among those was Rashad McCants, the Tarheels’ second-leading scorer on the 2004-05 national championship team. He has told media outlets that tutors wrote his term papers and he rarely went to class for about half his time at UNC, remaining eligible only because he took bogus classes.
McCants told ESPN that he, and others, would have been academically ineligible to play during the championship season without the assistance.
McCants also claimed that his coach, Roy Williams, had full knowledge of the fraudulent classes. McCants said that he even made the dean’s list in the spring of 2005 depute not attending any of his four classes for which he received straight-A grades.
Although there has yet to be punishment handed down to North Carolina’s athletic program, investigators have found the system of academic fraud at the school dates back at least 18 years.
To sum up: academic fraud at both schools, illegal payments, ignoring drug-testing results ... and both schools’ men’s basketball teams played in this year’s Final Four.
It is, of course, all about money. Programs like North Carolina, Syracuse and dozens of others at the sport’s highest level will do everything they can to win games.
Wonder why programs “cheat” to keep winning? Syracuse’s annual profit from its basketball program is close to $13 million annually. North Carolina’s is about $11 million annually. A little academic fraud won’t hurt those bottom lines.
In a perfect world, infractions incurred by North Carolina and Syracuse should result in the NCAA “death penalty,” shutting down those programs and numerous others for a year or two.
Instead, we have to watch the cheaters (and, no apologies to Boeheim for that particular terminology) play in the Final Four earlier this month, the sport’s biggest stage.
James Naismith would be ashamed. We should be, too.
http://www.saratogian.com/sports/20160416/on-the-record-no-room-for-cheating-in-ncaa
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
8 months for Level3 phone calls and "more of same" for WBB?? I don't think so. I predict ANOA has lots of eligibility spreadsheets.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@RCCPMD Spreadsheets which UNC will not disclose to public on FERPA grounds while claiming men's basketball program not at risk of sanction.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 I don't mind the FERPA protections to be candid. FERPA is a beast on our side. But ineligibility is simple math. Only take 1.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@RCCPMD FERPA is good thing. UNC has abused it, however, used as excuse to redact dates, even the word "basketball" from released documents.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 haven't seen all that. Odd.
Ted Tatos @BlueDevilicious
@RCCPMD @BDevilU1 Words "basketball", acronym "MBB" were redacted from documents. Football as well. Dates also redacted.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD Example of "basketball" & "MBB" redaction. Silly b/c name of coach & advisor not redacted.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD That email also emphasizes how fraud onset could benefit segregated MBB before spreading.
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@BDevilU1 @BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD Several times UNC has released football data, but refused to release equivalent data for MBB...FERPA
Gordon Jones @gordonsjones1
@BlueDevilicious @ncstatenate11 @RCCPMD @BDevilU1 that is one tortured interpretation of FERPA #royknew
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@gordonsjones1 @BlueDevilicious @ncstatenate11 @RCCPMD The UNC interpretation has been slanted to protect a carefully constructed narrative.
8 months for Level3 phone calls and "more of same" for WBB?? I don't think so. I predict ANOA has lots of eligibility spreadsheets.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@RCCPMD Spreadsheets which UNC will not disclose to public on FERPA grounds while claiming men's basketball program not at risk of sanction.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 I don't mind the FERPA protections to be candid. FERPA is a beast on our side. But ineligibility is simple math. Only take 1.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@RCCPMD FERPA is good thing. UNC has abused it, however, used as excuse to redact dates, even the word "basketball" from released documents.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 haven't seen all that. Odd.
Ted Tatos @BlueDevilicious
@RCCPMD @BDevilU1 Words "basketball", acronym "MBB" were redacted from documents. Football as well. Dates also redacted.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD Example of "basketball" & "MBB" redaction. Silly b/c name of coach & advisor not redacted.
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD That email also emphasizes how fraud onset could benefit segregated MBB before spreading.
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@BDevilU1 @BlueDevilicious @RCCPMD Several times UNC has released football data, but refused to release equivalent data for MBB...FERPA
Gordon Jones @gordonsjones1
@BlueDevilicious @ncstatenate11 @RCCPMD @BDevilU1 that is one tortured interpretation of FERPA #royknew
BDevilU @BDevilU1
@gordonsjones1 @BlueDevilicious @ncstatenate11 @RCCPMD The UNC interpretation has been slanted to protect a carefully constructed narrative.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
For doubters if EnfStaff will start at 1989, spreadsheet of progress towards degree (WITHOUT fraud classes) can't decipher who the coach was
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD Can you elaborate further? It's fairly clear they perpetrated since 1989 but tougher to bring concrete evidence
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@nathan_m_618215 I believe if/when NCAA demands recalculation of PRogress Towards Degree that their only option is to start at beginning. regardless of if a legendary coach was the coach. The numbers are what they are. SAs are eligible or they are not.
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD I agree that they are either eligible or not. However doesn't proving ineligibility get tougher moving at far back?
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@nathan_m_618215 you don't have to "prove". It is member institutions required duty. Has nothing to do w NCAA.
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD Seems easier for NCAA to deem early 1990s athletes ineligible then I originally thought. Just trying understand the process (1/2) If NCAA went all the way to 1993, wouldn't UNC throw an absolute fit? Or maybe that's what they have been doing for 8 months (2/2)
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@RCCPMD
For doubters if EnfStaff will start at 1989, spreadsheet of progress towards degree (WITHOUT fraud classes) can't decipher who the coach was
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD Can you elaborate further? It's fairly clear they perpetrated since 1989 but tougher to bring concrete evidence
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@nathan_m_618215 I believe if/when NCAA demands recalculation of PRogress Towards Degree that their only option is to start at beginning. regardless of if a legendary coach was the coach. The numbers are what they are. SAs are eligible or they are not.
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD I agree that they are either eligible or not. However doesn't proving ineligibility get tougher moving at far back?
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@nathan_m_618215 you don't have to "prove". It is member institutions required duty. Has nothing to do w NCAA.
Nathan @nathan_m_618215
@RCCPMD Seems easier for NCAA to deem early 1990s athletes ineligible then I originally thought. Just trying understand the process (1/2) If NCAA went all the way to 1993, wouldn't UNC throw an absolute fit? Or maybe that's what they have been doing for 8 months (2/2)
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@RCCPMD
Two things I wanted to say:
1. 1-2 years death penalty is not enough. They need at least 3-5 years and I would say that about any team including Duke, the fact that it is UNC is just icing on the cake. I believe that they should get 1 year's death penalty for every 3 years of proven ineligibility, ONLY because this has gone on so long. If in the future some other school is proven to have an academic scandal but it only goes back a few years, then in that case 1-2 years of a death penalty would be fine. 1-2 years is just a bump in the road for them. It's a big bump in the road considering what the death penalty means, but still, not enough in my opinion.
2. Some of the THR posters call Coach K Leader of Men or LOM. I think Roy should now be called LOL as in Leader of Liars. The acronym is hilarious and the meaning is hilarious as well.
1. 1-2 years death penalty is not enough. They need at least 3-5 years and I would say that about any team including Duke, the fact that it is UNC is just icing on the cake. I believe that they should get 1 year's death penalty for every 3 years of proven ineligibility, ONLY because this has gone on so long. If in the future some other school is proven to have an academic scandal but it only goes back a few years, then in that case 1-2 years of a death penalty would be fine. 1-2 years is just a bump in the road for them. It's a big bump in the road considering what the death penalty means, but still, not enough in my opinion.
2. Some of the THR posters call Coach K Leader of Men or LOM. I think Roy should now be called LOL as in Leader of Liars. The acronym is hilarious and the meaning is hilarious as well.
If Roy were my coach , I don't think I'd be casting any sorta aspersions on someone else's. He's not Sandusky or Bliss but he's pretty damn bad. If it were K , I'd be screamin' for his dismissal...except I wouldn't have to because Duke would've booted 'im a long-azz time ago. unx and their fans have dug in with Roy. Speaks volumes.
Not bad for a Monday mornin...'
Posted: Today 6:41 AM Re: Scandal v.7774 -- Kane article pg. 31
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1524 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
As a new week begins, chatter has definitely started to pick up in certain private circles. An "unofficial" gag order appears to have been lifted; will it extend to the public domain soon? We shall see.
And for those in CH: Are you a member (or do you know a member) of the RC ( Rams Club ), and you've been smiling these last few weeks about all that "good news" you were told?
A little clue -- DS ( Dwight Stone ) was 100% wrong about TWR ( The Wainstein Report ) when he was in his former position, and he's 100% wrong about what he's been spreading more recently in his new spot, as well.
Enjoy that.
Posted: Today 6:41 AM Re: Scandal v.7774 -- Kane article pg. 31
manalishi
PP HOF - SpecOps
Rating: 4.1/5 this site
1524 posts this site
Ignore this Member
Send Private Message
As a new week begins, chatter has definitely started to pick up in certain private circles. An "unofficial" gag order appears to have been lifted; will it extend to the public domain soon? We shall see.
And for those in CH: Are you a member (or do you know a member) of the RC ( Rams Club ), and you've been smiling these last few weeks about all that "good news" you were told?
A little clue -- DS ( Dwight Stone ) was 100% wrong about TWR ( The Wainstein Report ) when he was in his former position, and he's 100% wrong about what he's been spreading more recently in his new spot, as well.
Enjoy that.
Joel Curran is unx's PR stooge. Pictured above. Anyway , he's Reason #216 why unx does , indeed , suck...
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@DevilDJ32 $340,000/year Vice Chancellor of PR
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 @CheatingBlueRam @DevilDJ32 the PR guy makes $340,000??!??!?!!????? I am in the wrong business.
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@RCCPMD @BDevilU1 @DevilDJ32 In a year when state employees received no permanent salary increase, Joel received a $40,000 raise.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@CheatingBlueRam @BDevilU1 @DevilDJ32 haven't I seen UNC hired big PR firm?? Plus Curran's $340k. And their reputation still is shattered??
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@RCCPMD Correct. UNC hired Doug Sosnik early in mess...same guy Bill Clinton handled to manage Lewinsky stuff. "I did not have fraudulent relations with those athletes."-- Basically what Sosnik told UNC to say
Curran...
News & Observer Letter to the Editor from Joel Curran: FERPA’s purpose
Your May 22 editorial “FERPA law too often hides what public should know” neglected to mention several important points.
First, if Carolina wanted to hide from our mistakes, we would not have asked former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein to conduct an independent, comprehensive investigation into past improprieties – and we certainly would not have promised to make the findings public. We know that this is the only way to move forward.
Second, universities have a real legal responsibility at stake here. FERPA is a federal law; violating it has consequences. Judge Bryan Collins confirmed that releasing even a redacted version of the document The N&O requested would violate FERPA. The U.S. Department of Education, too, provided a letter supporting our position in this case.
Finally, contrary to what the editorial suggests, the law serves a very real purpose. Protecting student privacy is not a platitude or a shield. Universities are stewards of information that can permanently affect our students’ lives. We must live up to the trust they put in us.
Joel Curran
Vice Chancellor, Communications and Public Affairs, UNC-Chapel Hill
http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/u...o-the-editor-from-joel-curran-ferpas-purpose/
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@DevilDJ32 $340,000/year Vice Chancellor of PR
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@BDevilU1 @CheatingBlueRam @DevilDJ32 the PR guy makes $340,000??!??!?!!????? I am in the wrong business.
Cheating Blue Ram @CheatingBlueRam
@RCCPMD @BDevilU1 @DevilDJ32 In a year when state employees received no permanent salary increase, Joel received a $40,000 raise.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD
@CheatingBlueRam @BDevilU1 @DevilDJ32 haven't I seen UNC hired big PR firm?? Plus Curran's $340k. And their reputation still is shattered??
UNC Meme @UNCMeme
@RCCPMD Correct. UNC hired Doug Sosnik early in mess...same guy Bill Clinton handled to manage Lewinsky stuff. "I did not have fraudulent relations with those athletes."-- Basically what Sosnik told UNC to say
Curran...
News & Observer Letter to the Editor from Joel Curran: FERPA’s purpose
Your May 22 editorial “FERPA law too often hides what public should know” neglected to mention several important points.
First, if Carolina wanted to hide from our mistakes, we would not have asked former federal prosecutor Kenneth Wainstein to conduct an independent, comprehensive investigation into past improprieties – and we certainly would not have promised to make the findings public. We know that this is the only way to move forward.
Second, universities have a real legal responsibility at stake here. FERPA is a federal law; violating it has consequences. Judge Bryan Collins confirmed that releasing even a redacted version of the document The N&O requested would violate FERPA. The U.S. Department of Education, too, provided a letter supporting our position in this case.
Finally, contrary to what the editorial suggests, the law serves a very real purpose. Protecting student privacy is not a platitude or a shield. Universities are stewards of information that can permanently affect our students’ lives. We must live up to the trust they put in us.
Joel Curran
Vice Chancellor, Communications and Public Affairs, UNC-Chapel Hill
http://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/u...o-the-editor-from-joel-curran-ferpas-purpose/
Last edited:
Things are getting interesting folks!
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 42m42 minutes ago
My friend says a secret is no longer a secret when 3 people know it. Having said that, the amended NOA is done.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 38m38 minutes ago
ANOA is completed and delivery is awaiting analysis of tomorrow McCants hearing (maybe so NCAA counsel can review results?). Coming soon.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 32m32 minutes ago
Oh, one more thing, ANOA is bigger than original. The 5 Level 1s have grown to 6. And I think (but am not certain) they spawned a Level 2
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 42m42 minutes ago
My friend says a secret is no longer a secret when 3 people know it. Having said that, the amended NOA is done.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 38m38 minutes ago
ANOA is completed and delivery is awaiting analysis of tomorrow McCants hearing (maybe so NCAA counsel can review results?). Coming soon.
RCCPMD @RCCPMD 32m32 minutes ago
Oh, one more thing, ANOA is bigger than original. The 5 Level 1s have grown to 6. And I think (but am not certain) they spawned a Level 2
"AlignedFor9" is killin' it. FWIW , this guy has a great track record....
UNC men's basketball is not the only sport getting hit hard, but MBB is certainly getting hit hard. UNC won't get the death penalty, but I think 90% of us will be quite satisfied.
I think there will be some who will only be satisfied if UNC MBB receives the "death penalty." No UNC sport is going to receive the death penalty, but if the DP is not your only acceptable outcome...you'll be pleased.
I fully expect UNC to publicly release the copy of the amended copy of the NOA on May 27. There's more to this that I promised I would not share...if I value getting info. May 27 is based on two factors. The first is that UNC won't release the NOA without first having a meeting with the Board of Governors. Based on when UNC will receive the NOA from the NCAA and the calendar of scheduled BoG meetings...May 27 fits. Secondly, May 27 is a Friday heading into a long Memorial Day weekend. UNC's high-dollar PR team will continue to follow the playbook of releasing bad news late on a Friday...especially heading into a long holiday weekend.
The delay.... UNC just publicly released its response to SACS yesterday...despite the fact that UNC submitted it to SACS over a MONTH ago. UNC has delayed on releasing everything thus far. UNC delays in order to buy time to improperly redact names & information. Some of the redactions are legit according to FERPA...many more redactions are an improper application of FERPA. UNC also delays long enough to implement what it perceives to be the best PR strategy and spin. UNC has delayed every step of the way...
The NCAA has not yet sent the amended NOA to UNC, but it will happen very soon. Based on open-records laws...UNC must release the NOA upon request, but UNC has been unjustly slow at releasing EVERYTHING to the public regarding the scandal...
i'm fighting the urge to dump all that I have. However, it's not important. I do know the topic of the new/additional Level 2 violation. The new Level 2 violation won't do much to increase the NCAA penalty, but it will help open the gates for the FBI. The six Level 1 violations will be enough to get the job done. UNC "insiders" have claimed that the new NOA would be a reduction or easier on UNC. As I've repeated...that was a big lie being produced by UNC PR. The new NOA is bigger and much worse for UNC.
It is true that UNC reported two minor violations to the NCAA just before the deadline to respond to the original NOA. However, just before UNC reported those minor violations...the NCAA was given proof of a UNC policy that "creates problems" for UNC going back to the 1980s....when UNC told the NCAA & SACS that the policy was established in 2006 (#Liars). The NCAA does not like being the one to determine academic fraud. The NCAA has historically relied upon the school to determine academic fraud..and UNC refused to admit it before the original NOA was written. However, AFTER the original NOA was released...SACS determined "academic fraud" and UNC agreed...in writing. With the coming release of the new NOA...UNC has admitted academic fraud to SACS. There has been about an 8 month delay. Hmmmm...what could possibly take a compliance department 8 months to do? Figuring UNC's two minor violations does not take anywhere close to 8 months. What could "possibly" take 8 months of work by UNC compliance?
The amended Notice of Allegations has been finalized for at least a week, but has not been sent to UNC yet. Due to distrust that has grown for UNC, the NCAA chose to hold onto the NOA until after UNC made public its response to SACS. On Friday, UNC made public its SACS response. The amended NOA is much more harsh than the original NOA. It includes an additional Level 1 violation and an additional Level 2 violation (which includes a fun topic that could invite FBI). Tomorrow, a judge is hearing arguments for potential dismissal of "McCants vs NCAA"... I think it's a fair bet that UNC will receive the amended NOA by the end of April...and then we'll see how long UNC waits to make it public.
The new Level 2 violation is not the Adderall/ADHD issue. Why not....the new Level 2 violation involves financial aid to athletes. This won't impact UNC with the NCAA too much as its not a Level 1 violation, but it's the first official body to set a precedent of there being an "issue" with financial aid. Perhaps this official precedent opens the door for the FBI to consider Pell Grant fraud. In order to receive an athletic scholarship / Pell Grant, the student/athlete must be enrolled as a full-time student that is making Progress Toward Degree (PTG). The independent study policy that UNC athletics violated means tons of "classes" taken by athletes did not count for PTG... Thus meaning they were not eligible to receive an athletic scholarship/Pell Grant...yet they did.
New FTR... I do NOT know the wording or specific details of the financial aid issue outlined in the new Level 2. I simply know that it involves financial aid violations....and I'm using deductive reasoning.
UNC men's basketball is not the only sport getting hit hard, but MBB is certainly getting hit hard. UNC won't get the death penalty, but I think 90% of us will be quite satisfied.
I think there will be some who will only be satisfied if UNC MBB receives the "death penalty." No UNC sport is going to receive the death penalty, but if the DP is not your only acceptable outcome...you'll be pleased.
I fully expect UNC to publicly release the copy of the amended copy of the NOA on May 27. There's more to this that I promised I would not share...if I value getting info. May 27 is based on two factors. The first is that UNC won't release the NOA without first having a meeting with the Board of Governors. Based on when UNC will receive the NOA from the NCAA and the calendar of scheduled BoG meetings...May 27 fits. Secondly, May 27 is a Friday heading into a long Memorial Day weekend. UNC's high-dollar PR team will continue to follow the playbook of releasing bad news late on a Friday...especially heading into a long holiday weekend.
The delay.... UNC just publicly released its response to SACS yesterday...despite the fact that UNC submitted it to SACS over a MONTH ago. UNC has delayed on releasing everything thus far. UNC delays in order to buy time to improperly redact names & information. Some of the redactions are legit according to FERPA...many more redactions are an improper application of FERPA. UNC also delays long enough to implement what it perceives to be the best PR strategy and spin. UNC has delayed every step of the way...
The NCAA has not yet sent the amended NOA to UNC, but it will happen very soon. Based on open-records laws...UNC must release the NOA upon request, but UNC has been unjustly slow at releasing EVERYTHING to the public regarding the scandal...
i'm fighting the urge to dump all that I have. However, it's not important. I do know the topic of the new/additional Level 2 violation. The new Level 2 violation won't do much to increase the NCAA penalty, but it will help open the gates for the FBI. The six Level 1 violations will be enough to get the job done. UNC "insiders" have claimed that the new NOA would be a reduction or easier on UNC. As I've repeated...that was a big lie being produced by UNC PR. The new NOA is bigger and much worse for UNC.
It is true that UNC reported two minor violations to the NCAA just before the deadline to respond to the original NOA. However, just before UNC reported those minor violations...the NCAA was given proof of a UNC policy that "creates problems" for UNC going back to the 1980s....when UNC told the NCAA & SACS that the policy was established in 2006 (#Liars). The NCAA does not like being the one to determine academic fraud. The NCAA has historically relied upon the school to determine academic fraud..and UNC refused to admit it before the original NOA was written. However, AFTER the original NOA was released...SACS determined "academic fraud" and UNC agreed...in writing. With the coming release of the new NOA...UNC has admitted academic fraud to SACS. There has been about an 8 month delay. Hmmmm...what could possibly take a compliance department 8 months to do? Figuring UNC's two minor violations does not take anywhere close to 8 months. What could "possibly" take 8 months of work by UNC compliance?
The amended Notice of Allegations has been finalized for at least a week, but has not been sent to UNC yet. Due to distrust that has grown for UNC, the NCAA chose to hold onto the NOA until after UNC made public its response to SACS. On Friday, UNC made public its SACS response. The amended NOA is much more harsh than the original NOA. It includes an additional Level 1 violation and an additional Level 2 violation (which includes a fun topic that could invite FBI). Tomorrow, a judge is hearing arguments for potential dismissal of "McCants vs NCAA"... I think it's a fair bet that UNC will receive the amended NOA by the end of April...and then we'll see how long UNC waits to make it public.
The new Level 2 violation is not the Adderall/ADHD issue. Why not....the new Level 2 violation involves financial aid to athletes. This won't impact UNC with the NCAA too much as its not a Level 1 violation, but it's the first official body to set a precedent of there being an "issue" with financial aid. Perhaps this official precedent opens the door for the FBI to consider Pell Grant fraud. In order to receive an athletic scholarship / Pell Grant, the student/athlete must be enrolled as a full-time student that is making Progress Toward Degree (PTG). The independent study policy that UNC athletics violated means tons of "classes" taken by athletes did not count for PTG... Thus meaning they were not eligible to receive an athletic scholarship/Pell Grant...yet they did.
New FTR... I do NOT know the wording or specific details of the financial aid issue outlined in the new Level 2. I simply know that it involves financial aid violations....and I'm using deductive reasoning.
Can UNC self-report more violations at the last possible minute? Would that delay the sanctions even further?
I'm not sure but I would think if they do, UNC may be on probation when my grandkids are old enough to go to school...and that's in about 30+ years
- Status
