• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Tar Holes NOA from the NCAA

Essentially, the Enforcement Staff must prove their allegations to the COI. I have not followed every NCAA case, but I am not aware of many cases where the COI threw out the Enforcement Staff's case and sided with the University. If you get in front of the COI, something is going to happen. . .and 99 times out of 100, it's not good for the Member Institution.
 
pourdeac said:
So you don't think the enforcement committee had limiting the penalties in mind when they fashioned that NOA? Hard to believe that didn't happen given how vague it reads. Having 2 committees just makes it easier for them to pull this off anyway.....the separation is insulation. The COI would essentially have to add new accusations to reach some of the conclusions being floated here if the prosecutor/judge analogy is true. Is it their job to determine a player's eligibility? If they are to rule on what is presented, as in a judge, then if the NOA does not state specific players were ineligible, then how do they conclude or rule that a player was ineligible? Not saying that can't happen but I don't see it outside of women's bb.

I guess we can always hope that the committee will be as repulsed as we are. I personally hope UNC's antics hit their their academic reputation hard.
Click to expand...

If limiting the penlites was the goal of the NOA it would not have been written the way it was and it would not have been as expansive as it was. If they wanted to shield mens BBall it would not have mentioned mens BBall over 40 times. Again, if the NCAA wanted to protect UNC-ch and specifically mens BBall that letter would have been written very differently.
 
AttilatheHoo said:
B83-n0cCUAMleEN.png
Click to expand...

They were actively covering up giving impermissible benefits to athletes.
 
I just can't get over the fact that the Asst AD in charge of Compliance knew there was something untoward going on with these classes and did nothing to stop it. BTW, eventually, she was promoted to Associate AD. . .

Wouldn't her knowledge be imputed to Baddour?
 
There is a benefit athletes got that no one talks about. Countless acts of plagiarism and the turning in of other's work. These acts where caught by faculty and and staff and were overlooked. The students violated the UNC honor code and so did the staff of UNC. No Honor code indictments, no honor code trials, no punishment. So unless there are no ramifications for the general students when caught in honor code violations this was an impermissible benefit repeated time and again by athletes and their employed keepers.
 
As cliché as it sounds, you can either look at the glass as half-empty or half-full.

If you look at it as half-empty you would focus on the fact that there were no allegations on player ineligibility.

If you look at it as half-full you would focus on a report that was much tougher on UNC than what UNC fans were expecting. They got hit with impermissible benefits. Personally I didn’t think the NCAA would have the courage to go there. Football and men’s basketball were specifically called out in a manner that would appear to be difficult for the COI to sidestep. There were other Level 1 violations plus the LOIC for academic side of the house. The whole thing reads like the NCAA was out for blood, but ultimately decided that the eligibility issue was somewhere there couldn’t go without crossing a line that they didn’t want to cross.

Given the nature of the allegations it seems foolish to try and predict penalties, but here goes: I think UNC gets heavy fines, a lengthy probation, 1 year postseason bans for football and men’s basketball, and modest scholarship reductions for several sports (including football and men’s basketball). No wins or banners forfeited.

By the way, here is the NCAA bylaw that I referred to yesterday regarding eligibility issues associated with allegation #1:

16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned upon the student-athlete repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her own choice. The student-athlete, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the reciept of the impermissible benefit until the student-athlete repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the student-athlete's repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.

However, note that this N&O article states why UNC may not be completely in the clear yet on the question of eligibility http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article23233803.html
 
94 - how were previous cases involving tutors writing papers for student-athletes handled? I presume not as impermissible benefits cases? Were they treated as academic fraud cases? In academic fraud cases, is the student-athlete not declared ineligible?

I am curious, because as Mack mentions above, there are multiple allegations of tutors helping write papers or, in at least one case, helping find a paper for them to turn in. Boxil appears to be guilty of several of these offenses. While UNC was not charged with academic fraud, it seems to me that these instances of misconduct go beyond impermissible benefits into the realm of academic fraud. I suspect that the NCAA Enforcement Staff and/or the COI may not feel constrained enough to take ineligibility off of the table.
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
If limiting the penlites was the goal of the NOA it would not have been written the way it was and it would not have been as expansive as it was. If they wanted to shield mens BBall it would not have mentioned mens BBall over 40 times. Again, if the NCAA wanted to protect UNC-ch and specifically mens BBall that letter would have been written very differently.
Click to expand...
IMO the goal was to protect men's BB as much as possible AND put an end to the investigations by doing their job (or looking like they did). Nothing happens with a singular goal in mind at this level. They could not hide the Wainstein report which has men's BB all over it. UNC ignored that stuff for years and just perpetuated the problem. The NCAA was not going to let it continue down that road.
 
Deac94 said:
Given the nature of the allegations it seems foolish to try and predict penalties, but here goes: I think UNC gets heavy fines, a lengthy probation, 1 year postseason bans for football and men’s basketball, and modest scholarship reductions for several sports (including football and men’s basketball). No wins or banners forfeited.
Click to expand...
That's sort of my take too, except I think they'll be really really hard on women's bb since that's named, and go lighter than that on football (because it was dealt with once already) and men's bball since Williams was not mentioned. No doubt UNC will get a really heavy fine for general lack of control. No vacated wins or banners forfeited.
 
D4L said:
I just can't get over the fact that the Asst AD in charge of Compliance knew there was something untoward going on with these classes and did nothing to stop it. BTW, eventually, she was promoted to Associate AD. . .

Wouldn't her knowledge be imputed to Baddour?
Click to expand...

And one of their folks used to be at Wake--Larry Gallo who is also an Assoc AD--From 1987-1990, Gallo was the Assistant Director of Athletics for Facility Development and Management and assistant baseball coach at Wake Forest. He served as Associate Director of Athletics for Internal Affairs and Operations there from 1990-95. He was responsible for the men's Olympic Sports program, all game and event management (with particular emphasis on football and men's basketball), facility administration, NCAA and ACC compliance issues for all sports, and the administration of the department's substance abuse program. Gallo served as the tournament director for the first and second rounds of the 1993 NCAA Men's Basketball Championship hosted by Wake Forest.
 
with regard to this:

Deac94 said:
16.01.1.1 Restitution for Receipt of Impermissible Benefits. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which the benefit is $100 or less, the eligibility of the student-athlete shall not be affected conditioned upon the student-athlete repaying the value of the benefit to a charity of his or her own choice. The student-athlete, however, shall remain ineligible from the time the institution has knowledge of the reciept of the impermissible benefit until the student-athlete repays the benefit. Violations of this bylaw remain institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1, and documentation of the student-athlete's repayment shall be forwarded to the enforcement staff. For violations of Bylaw 16 in which there is no monetary value to the benefit, violations shall be considered institutional violations per Constitution 2.8.1; however, such violations shall not affect the student-athlete's eligibility.
Click to expand...

Seems to me that getting credit for a class in which you do no work does have a monetary value. Almost every college, including UNC, offers part-time students the opportunity to earn credits toward a degree at a price-per-credit hour. I'm guessing that price per credit hour for these made-up AFAM courses (or any course at UNC) would be more than $100. Not at all sure that the NCAA would look at it in exactly that way, but I think there's at least a case to be made that these classes were impermissible benefits with a real monetary value.
 
One if the biggest tarhole scandal apologists on my Facebook feed posted an article about the 10 most deluded fanbases. The irony was lost on him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top