NCAA & the Process
- Thread starter Tom79
- Start date
My reading comprehension isn't what it used to be but it sure seems one does not have any NOA's without NOI's. If UNC has received NOA's it is up to the University to release publicly.
To date, UNC has not received an NOI, seems to me the NCAA is having some difficulty framing the NOI's...
To date, UNC has not received an NOI, seems to me the NCAA is having some difficulty framing the NOI's...
No offense, but people need to stop using this example. The depth and complexity of UNC's case is far, far beyond the Auburn case.
I think you're correct that UNC hasn't received a formal, written NOI. IIRC from their previous investigation, the NCAA had been on campus for several months before they finally issued one (which speaks to your comments about their difficulty framing the issues because those issues are so complex). It's probably just a formality. Also, I'm not sure if they even need to issue a new NOI since they're re-opening a previous case.
[Edit to add:] Just read the article. The process described should be painfully familiar to anyone who followed the original case regarding the football team.
Last edited:
Use the left/right scroll feature on the banner stories.
You can't miss it. (<--- I keed, I keed)
Actually, not true. They did quickly reinstate him (quite properly) after the perfunctory declaration of ineligibility by Auburn during the season because there was no existent evidence that he should be ineligible. That part was a formality. However, with all the allegations out there, following that, the NCAA put Auburn through an on-campus anal probe for over a year before they would release a final report.
Things got quite testy during that time as teams were using negative recruiting (sound familiar?), and at one point Gene Chizik actually publicly confronted the NCAA spokeswoman during a presser and demanded a resolution. As you might imagine that exchange was not especially friendly.
Finally, a few months later, the NCAA issued their report finding no improprieties --- and in what may have been due to Auburn's aggressiveness --- the NCAA went further to issue an unprecedented exoneration, dismissing the allegations against Cam as little more than "internet rumors and innuendo".
So, how does that bode for UNC? It's not the same thing obviously, but I believe that the internal report coming clean about the academic issues is good for UNC because: 1) it indicates a proactive approach, which the NCAA likes, and 2) it shows that the basketball program's connection to those shenanigans was mostly indirect (as opposed to say, Syracuse, where shenanigans were coordinated) and that steps were taken by the current regime to distance the program from the shady academic department.
Personally I think the school should take an aggressive approach, in that if the NCAA follows its own guidelines, there really is nothing there that they have jurisdiction over as far as sanctions for the basketball program. Players who took AFAM courses did the work required, such as it was (the McCants nonsensical allegations were categorically refuted), so no player would have been ineligible under NCAA rules. There again is another major difference with the Syracuse situation.
It's not that simple. The issues of improper academic assistance and fraudulent credits are still in play, either of which would have rendered players ineligible.
They already dinged the football team for improper academic assistance with the 2012 sanctions.
Where is the improper assistance? I didn't see anything about anyone doing academic work for the basketball players (outside of McCants' goofy accusations which, as i understand it, were discredited).
The AFAM credits should be an internal college issue. Assuming the (many) students (athletes and non-athletes) who got AFAM credits aren't going to have their degrees and/or credits revoked by the University, how can the NCAA deem them "fraudulent" under their jurisdiction? In fact, I think that is a big part of the distinction that Emmert was trying to draw in the public statements he made previously differentiating the UNC situation from Syracuse.
Now, granted, the NCAA can be capricious and political... and UNC is an easy target for the NC State and UK types out there pushing the court of public opinion who have long resented the school's well-deserved academic reputation... but again, the NCAA would have to make an awfully big reach to lump UNC's basketball program in with the misbehavior of the football program, much less anything remotely resembling the Syracuse situation.
The most I could see justified would be a "failure to monitor", but that would fall mainly on the Doh era. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong.... but I think the basketball program is on somewhat safer ground than many believe. And history shows that programs who are a) proactive in addressing problems, and b) aggressive nonetheless in standing up for fair treatment, usually fare the best in these things.
Um, yeah... I did.
And just for old-times' sake, here are the sections I ear-marked before:
"It is this tension – the tension between academics and athletics – that partly explains how the academic irregularities came to be at Chapel Hill. At some point in 1993, Crowder took it upon herself to relieve this tension by offering classes with watered-down academic requirements that made it easier for struggling student-athletes to get a passing grade. Nyang’oro signed on to this scheme soon thereafter, and these classes quickly became popular among Chapel Hill athletes."
"Unlike the football players, however, the basketball players seemed to find their way to these classes through a variety of routes. While the ASPSA basketball counselor –McSwain and then Walden – would occasionally suggest these classes, they did not routinely steer players into the classes without the players’ knowledge. More often than not, the basketball players found these classes either through referrals from their teammates – “locker room advising” – or via their direct relationship with Crowder, who always maintained close ties among the basketball team. Moreover, unlike the football players who largely conceded that these classes held little educational value, several of the basketball players insisted that they read extensively and worked hard to produce their papers for these classes."
"As for men’s basketball specifically, there is no downturn in enrollments in 2005 to suggest that the new coaching staff brought in a new policy disfavoring the paper classes. There is a gradual decline in enrollments starting in 2007 – and no spike right before Crowder’s retirement while football players and other athletes were desperately trying to load up on the last paper classes – which likely does reflect the conscious effort by the coaches and Wayne Walden to encourage their players to take lecture classes that require attendance.
"Although most of the attention over the past three years has been focused on student-athlete involvement in the paper classes, it is important to remember that a majority – 52.9% – of the enrollees in these classes were non-athlete students........ The majority of non-athlete students who took these paper classes did so with full awareness of – and largely because of – their lack of structure and rigor. Through our interviews and email review, we learned that there were a variety of means by which these students learned of and were directed toward these classes. First, there was the general word-of-mouth network on campus. With up to 400 enrollments in some semesters, their existence was hardly a secret. As with any course that offers an easy path to a high grade, word of these classes got around....... The largest source of referrals for non-athlete students – besides word-of-mouth – was the fraternity network on campus."
"We undertook to identify any instances where tutors crossed that line in regard to the paper class papers. First, we interviewed a number of student-athletes about the degree of drafting assistance they received from the ASPSA tutors. To a person, these student-athletes insisted that they drafted their papers and that the tutors’ assistance was limited to general suggestions and corrections. The only student-athlete who has deviated from that line is Rashad McCants, a player on the Chapel Hill men’s basketball team from 2003 to 2005. ... Given McCants’ failure to provide details about this alleged cheating – such as the names of either the tutor(s) who allegedly drafted these papers or the other basketball players who allegedly turned them in for credit – and his unwillingness to be interviewed, we are left with no evidence to support those allegations."
----
And, lest we forget, only 3 tutors admitted to crossing the line by assisting too much with papers and student work: 2 football tutors and 1 women's basketball tutor.
So again, where is the improper assistance or fraudulent credits for men's basketball (outside of the vivid imagination of Rashad McCants)?
It would be easy to disprove McCants statements by looking at his grade transcripts. Was he failing classes prior to taking 4 AFAM classes. Did he make straight A's or a 4.0 in those classes without going to class. Would he have been declared ineligible without getting these grades. I thought he provided this info to ESPN.
His grade transcripts prove absolutely zilch. Tell me, had McCants not taken taken ANY AFAM classes what classes would he have taken in their stead? Now tell me what his grades would have been in the substitute classes. If you can't your point is moot, and you can't.
