Wondering the same thing.
????
You mean the NCAA appeals committee?
NCAA Committee on Infractions tomorrow at noon will release its final report, including sanctions
- Thread starter pln2013
- Start date
Wondering the same thing.
????
You mean the NCAA appeals committee?
One small solace in this was that the report was gonna be released at noon tomorrow which would effectively bury the story in the fri news dump. Fri and sat evening news viewership is the lowest of the week and thats why parties will release neg news on a fri. Now it looks like we wont be so lucky. If the release is changed to mon its to bring maximum media attention to it.
But there should have never been a 3rd NOA. Sending a response saying "we don't think you have authority over this issue" doesn't warrant a harsher punishment. They sent a rejection and that should have been the end of it. Instead they got petty and want to throw the book at them for challenging their "Authori-tah".
And they still could have hit us with LOIC. Which probably would have been harder to fight in court, since we would have accepted their punishment.
Agreed, releasing information on the weekend/later times in the day is often used when you want minimum backlash. Bringing it to a different day means they want it front and center.
Hope it's not the case.
well..I agree to an extent but as I said it was equivalent to a get out of jail free card and unc didnt take it. The result has been another year and a half more of uncertainty and a very likely harsh ruling coming soon. I still have yet to read or hear a good reason why that 2nd Noa was treated the way it was by UNC. Its just bizarre to me.
Looks like it's perfect timing for the NCAA with the climate still reeling over the FBI investigation into CBB... They will try to ride the coat tails of the FBI.
Due to scheduling circumstances, there will be no release tomorrow regarding the NCAA Committee on Infractions decision. We have not yet received the Committee’s public infractions report. We anticipate we will be informed 24 hours prior to the actual release at a later date.”
– Vice Chancellor of University Communications Joel Curran, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
– Vice Chancellor of University Communications Joel Curran, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
LOIC is not some light-hearted charge that equates to "get out of jail free". It's vague enough that it could hit every single sport at the University. Despite the fact that Basketball and Football were explicitly removed. Why else do you think UNC even responded like they did?
But even ignoring that, There is no logical reason why a third NOA was handed out. It took everyone by surprise and I've yet to hear a good reason why it was even warranted.
The University argued that "matters of academic irregularities are subject to review by the Southern Association of Colleges and School — but not within the jurisdiction of the NCAA." The NCAA disagreed with this conclusion. End of story. The next step should have been the COI Hearing with the 2nd NOA still in place.
UNC should take zero fault for the NCAA's bipolar and unpredictable behavior. I fully support both their decisions now. May cost us a few more lumps, but so be it. We'll likely get off scot-free when it's all said and done.
I, for one, am not sure why any Tar Heel is worried. We have made our case, presented our evidence to the committee. Let's see if the majority of the 7 can contain the sec zealots.
With what is going on in the FBI investigation I would think the NCAA would have become much more rational. They will find protecting the SEC is not in their best interest nor is promoting members of SEC institutions to the NCAA.
We'll see.
With what is going on in the FBI investigation I would think the NCAA would have become much more rational. They will find protecting the SEC is not in their best interest nor is promoting members of SEC institutions to the NCAA.
We'll see.
Honestly brother, nothing more than anyone else has or beyond what I've posted here before, i.e., that Sankey is as corrupt as a $3 bill, as is Emmert. Sankey has an agenda of using UNC as cover for protecting bama football and uk basketball --- the $EC's flag$hip$ --- and I feel confident that this thing would have been over and done with relatively painlessly without him sticking his damned nose in.
The only mitigating factor I can think of is that rumor has it that Sank-boy has lost some internal confidence/support within the NCAA. That being said, Emmert previously triggered mass resignations for vetoing investigators' recommendations on bama, and that jackwagon is still there, so... who knows? I'm just glad UNC is lawyered-up
...Mens basketball and football werent even mentioned in that one. I can appreciate what youre saying but Id rather roll the dice with an noa that doesnt even fricken name the two main sports as opposed to whatever absolute ass raping thats about to take place now.But thats just me apparently because whoever the esteemed brain trust is at UNC didnt see it that way or perhaps thought the Ncaa wouldnt call their bluff.
Oops.
This is extremely confusing wording. Does this mean there was never a report to begin with and that someone (possibly) made this whole thing story?
Otherwise, how would this be "Due to scheduling circumstances" if there's nothing to schedule?
That's a fair point but we're not sure that it was quite that cut-and-dried as to triggering the revised letter. There are, after all, some unclean hands behind it that may have pushed it anyway.
Now, maybe UNC's folks did make a tactical error. We shall see. In any event it doesn't make the NCAA's
"case" any sounder... just likely means we end up in court.
Why do you hate kangaroos?
How bout this?
"Due to our asses being in slings thanks to the FBI we are temporarily unable to sit for a meeting."
Don't worry, Trump will tweet something that will distract everybody.
Oh, God! Please don't let him tweet about UNC!
I understand your point, but we'll have to agree to disagree. It's completely impossible that anyone on our end was expecting an all new NOA because of something that didn't warrant one. Especially when we didn't provide any new information in our challenge, compared to our response during the 2nd NOA when we spilled the beans on Men's Soccer and WBB.
The Uni would have had to accept the 2nd NOA regardless of the challenge we issued.
Here's a summary of this whole thing for those who forgot:
1. NCAA: After Our long and drawn out investigation, Here's your 1st NOA.
2. UNC: Oh wait, here's some information about Men's Soccer and WBB.
3. NCAA: Cool, thanks. Here's a milder NOA. (2nd NOA)
4. UNC: Actually, we don't think you're in any position to pass jurisdiction in this matter (Challenge of the 2nd NOA)
5. NCAA: Nice try but no. (Rejection of Challenge). Should have been on to the COI
6. *Sankey enters the frey; 90+ days later*
7. NCAA: Actually the way, here's your new new and harsher NOA. That's what you get for challenging us!
Somewhere between 5 and 7 is where the NCAA ****ed up.
Rose, if ya cruise by their site the major infractions section is packed. Jammed and packed...they literally have hundreds of cases at various levels.
But they could get UNC's to the Report well before the 110 days allowed as they took about 50 days.
Just hold on, we'll see...
But they could get UNC's to the Report well before the 110 days allowed as they took about 50 days.
Just hold on, we'll see...
Visit the Duke board and they are glum because they expect us to get no more than a slap on the wrist. Visit here and we are glum because we expect to get hammered.
Everybody is glum.
Somebody is wrong.
Everybody is glum.
Somebody is wrong.
My first thought is that they are moving fast because they don't want us to be able to drag it out beyond the NCAAT. Could that be true?
I don't know the rules. If they hit us with a ban, do we have a challenge period that would stall implementing that ban? Or have all the challenges been used?
What I'm thinking is that if we have, say, a 3-month period within which to appeal, then we could wait until January to appeal. Which would start another clock running. But by hitting us early, all the appeal stuff may be over before the NCAAT - so, if we lose, the ban sticks.
Whereas if they waited until December to hit us, then we appeal in March, and the appeal probably isn't over until after the NCAAT. So we get to play.
I don't know the rules. If they hit us with a ban, do we have a challenge period that would stall implementing that ban? Or have all the challenges been used?
What I'm thinking is that if we have, say, a 3-month period within which to appeal, then we could wait until January to appeal. Which would start another clock running. But by hitting us early, all the appeal stuff may be over before the NCAAT - so, if we lose, the ban sticks.
Whereas if they waited until December to hit us, then we appeal in March, and the appeal probably isn't over until after the NCAAT. So we get to play.
My only caution to our group would be, does the NCAA et al really want to open the can of worms that, as an example, the Universities that offer for credit, courses to athletes only, taught by athletics personnel for grades, like going to football practice...so let them try to say we offered some "benefit" to athletes only when curriculum was open to all students.
My other thought is that the NCAA has been made to look like pussies by the FBI investigation into rampant corruption that the NCAA should have shut down years ago.
So they want to show they aren't as irrelevant as they look. Hitting us hard is one way to do that.
I'm not saying they went back and made their sanctions harder, just so they could look tough and relevant. Then again, what's stopping them? That might be exactly what they did.
Sort of like a judge who is about to pass a light sentence on a drunk driver but then there's a horrible multi-death accident involving a drunk driver. The judge could well decide to pass a much tougher sentence.
So they want to show they aren't as irrelevant as they look. Hitting us hard is one way to do that.
I'm not saying they went back and made their sanctions harder, just so they could look tough and relevant. Then again, what's stopping them? That might be exactly what they did.
Sort of like a judge who is about to pass a light sentence on a drunk driver but then there's a horrible multi-death accident involving a drunk driver. The judge could well decide to pass a much tougher sentence.
Wouldn't a 2 year post season ban and 12 scholarships over 4 years be like... not that bad? Like, I am more worried about wins and championships than that... though I won't watch the tourney without UNC in it.
Yup and a 2yr post season ban would take about 5-10 yrs to recover from..... not a lot of wins or banners in that time.
Tomorrow put a ice cold beer in your cornflakes to start the day. Then relax. Perhaps even some further research into this "investigation" into AFAM/LOIC.
Unc kicks off a huge fund raising campaign tomorrow. Lots of events lasting all day with the admin all in attendance. Speculation is unc asked ncaa to hold off since they would not be avail to read and or respond to their release.
I’ve read that but do you really think the ncaa cares? I’m sure someone in the UNC camp could make time tomorrow to read it & issue a statement.
wilm nails it ....WE asked for this delay due to fund raising meetings, staff all tied up and no time to review the document before it is made public
These are charges against unc. Why would the NCAA give a crap what unc has going on?
If there is a scholarship reduction, what happens to the guys we already have commitments from?
Do we have to let them go if that pushes us over the ban limit?
If so, who determines who goes and who stays? Is it last-in-first-out?
Or would the scholarship reduction start with 2019 and leave the 2018 class intact? And who's choice is that - ours or the NCAA's?
Do we have to let them go if that pushes us over the ban limit?
If so, who determines who goes and who stays? Is it last-in-first-out?
Or would the scholarship reduction start with 2019 and leave the 2018 class intact? And who's choice is that - ours or the NCAA's?
If there are big sanctions and UNC doesn't fight them, would Roy stay?
I ask because if UNC isn't willing to fight for Roy, I wouldn't blame him for walking away. I doubt he would - because he cares about the kids and the program - but I wouldn't blame him.
I ask because if UNC isn't willing to fight for Roy, I wouldn't blame him for walking away. I doubt he would - because he cares about the kids and the program - but I wouldn't blame him.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
THI Podcast: The Basketball Show | GM Role, Extended Staff, Family and More
- Latest: andrew jones