• 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

Here's my argument for why the NCAA has to take very serious measures in this matter: The NCAA is being sued right now in the Northern District of California by a group of Plaintiffs in a Class Action Suit. One of many demands being made by the Plaintiffs is the unfettered ability to negotiate with the individual schools for compensation. The NCAA is opposing this demand in the same manner it always has by alleging that compensation is not necessary because the athletes are being more than adequately compensated by the receipt of an education.

The NCAA has to hammer UNC and hammer them hard. If they fail to do so, the Plantiff's will point to this case as their Exhibit A. How can the NCAA argue with a straight face that they athletes are being "educated" and yet do nothing when faced with clear evidence that multiple UNC athletes were not actually receiving an education. Game. Set. Match. For the Plaintiffs.

Per the NOA, ". . .severe breach of conduct because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model." Yeah. . .undermine indeed.

I think the NCAA's hands are tied here. They are going to have to make an example out of UNC.
 
Last edited:
RacerDeac said:
Based on the success of each at predicting the future over the last few years, I'm pretty sure I know which board I'd place my bets on.
Click to expand...

About that...

Andrew Stilwell ‏@stilwell · 35m35 minutes ago
Roy Williams' name mentioned 1x in 16,500-word 59-page NOA.
Roy Williams' name mentioned 7x in 720-word N&O Op-Ed.
 
D4L said:
Here's my argument for why the NCAA has to take very serious measures in this matter: The NCAA is being sued right now in the Northern District of California by a group of Plaintiffs in a Class Action Suit. One of many demands being made by the Plaintiffs is the unfettered ability to negotiate with the individual schools for compensation. The NCAA is opposing this demand in the same manner it always has by alleging that compensation is not necessary because the athletes are being more than adequately compensated by the receipt of an education.

The NCAA has to hammer UNC and hammer them hard. If they fail to do so, the Plantiff's will point to this case as their Exhibit A. How can the NCAA argue with a straight face that they athletes are being "educated" and yet do nothing when faced with clear evidence that multiple UNC athletes were not actually receiving an education. Game. Set. Match. For the Plaintiffs.

Per the NOA, ". . .severe breach of conduct because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model." Yeah. . .undermine indeed.

I think the NCAA's hands are tied here. They are going to have to make an example out of UNC.
Click to expand...

Interesting take.
 
How do the violations compare to the recent Syracuse violations? That should at least provide some context as to the punishment. This seems far far far worse, but I have not followed that closely.
 
D4L said:
Here's my argument for why the NCAA has to take very serious measures in this matter: The NCAA is being sued right now in the Northern District of California by a group of Plaintiffs in a Class Action Suit. One of many demands being made by the Plaintiffs is the unfettered ability to negotiate with the individual schools for compensation. The NCAA is opposing this demand in the same manner it always has by alleging that compensation is not necessary because the athletes are being more than adequately compensated by the receipt of an education.

The NCAA has to hammer UNC and hammer them hard. If they fail to do so, the Plantiff's will point to this case as their Exhibit A. How can the NCAA argue with a straight face that they athletes are being "educated" and yet do nothing when faced with clear evidence that multiple UNC athletes were not actually receiving an education. Game. Set. Match. For the Plaintiffs.

Per the NOA, ". . .severe breach of conduct because the violations seriously undermine or threaten the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model." Yeah. . .undermine indeed.

I think the NCAA's hands are tied here. They are going to have to make an example out of UNC.
Click to expand...

On the other hand the NCAA is trying to get out of another lawsuit brought by former UNC athletes claiming that they were denied a quality education. The position taken by the NCAA in that case? The NCAA says it has no legal responsibility "to ensure the academic integrity of the courses offered to student-athletes at its member institutions." http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/01/sport/ncaa-response-to-lawsuit/
 
That's a fair argument in that context, 94. The NCAA is defending their role as an enforcement entity in that lawsuit. They probably will and should be dismissed from that lawsuit. In the Class Action Suit I referenced, they are trying to defend the Collegiate Model and the Collegiate Model only makes sense if the athletes are receiving a fair exchange of education for their athletic prowess, eligibility, and time. They are not defending their role as an Enforcement entity insomuch as the system itself. If UNC is allowed to make a trade in which they give little or nothing in exchange for the athlete's prowess, eligibility, time. etc. then the NCAA's has no argument to make against the claim that athletes are entitled to compensation. They can't sit by idly and watch a member institution make a mockery of the model and then argue the defensibility of that model.
 
jhmd2000 said:
"Since it isn't, I can go on pretending that only my rival school cheats. Aaron Curry was getting into Wake Forest anyway; we had no idea he could play football until he showed up for class."
Click to expand...

You can do better JH. I had to check the post count to make sure this wasn't an imposter.
 
Tarholes need to do this to win at men's bball? They already get their pick of the best high school players. I'm not following
 
Wrangor said:
You can do better JH. I had to check the post count to make sure this wasn't an imposter.
Click to expand...

A fair point. Wake and UNC are not rivals. The truth is, I was expecting something on the "showed up for class" front. Methinks the blood flow North is low today in ABC land.
 
D4L said:
That's a fair argument in that context, 94. The NCAA is defending their role as an enforcement entity in that lawsuit. They probably will and should be dismissed from that lawsuit. In the Class Action Suit I referenced, they are trying to defend the Collegiate Model and the Collegiate Model only makes sense if the athletes are receiving a fair exchange of education for their athletic prowess, eligibility, and time. They are not defending their role as an Enforcement entity insomuch as the system itself. If UNC is allowed to make a trade in which they give little or nothing in exchange for the athlete's prowess, eligibility, time. etc. then the NCAA's has no argument to make against the claim that athletes are entitled to compensation. They can't sit by idly and watch a member institution make a mockery of the model and then argue the defensibility of that model.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I didn't think they were contradictory positions exactly. Just interesting how the NCAA has to thread a needle with all of these different positions. For example, some will assume that the allegations today were for having sham classes for athletes. My quick read was that the allegations had more to do with 1) having better access to the sham classes than regular students, 2) the assistance they got from ASPSA counselors in completing the coursework required for the sham classes and 3) counting the credits from sham classes as lecture hours instead of independent study hours. But not really allegations about having the sham classes themselves. Its like the NCAA is trying to manage about 3 different tightrope walks.
 
3 tightrope walks is being generous.
 
What UNC should be worrying about is the NCAA denying accreditation. This would be the worst possible punishment. This would be the equivalent of the death penalty in athletics. By the way, the NCAA has been looking into just this as has been reported by different news sources. I have said since day one that this was an academia problem and not an athletic one. I look for the University to get severe sanctions, not so much the athletic department. If I'm wrong, I will eat crow here.
 
I don't think accreditation is the NCAA's baileywick. By definition, they are in charge of enforcement as it relates to Athletics. SACS is the accreditation entity that UNC has to be fearful of. . .and I think they are close to announcing a decision.
 
I wouldn't worry about Roy, I'd worry about Dean's (and Swofford's) legacies. If charges go back 17-18 years, it started during their tenures. UNC has a great team for 2016, but their recruiting will be destroyed until there's a definitive decision and that will likely happen in January/February. Roy "retires" after the season and they'll have to overpay and give more years to a lesser candidate than they'd be able to attract under normal circumstances (Amaker to Michigan).
 
jhmd2000 said:
About that...

Andrew Stilwell ‏@stilwell · 35m35 minutes ago
Roy Williams' name mentioned 1x in 16,500-word 59-page NOA.
Roy Williams' name mentioned 7x in 720-word N&O Op-Ed.
Click to expand...

Yeah, what were they talking about?
"The AFRI/AFAM department created anomalous courses that went unchecked for 18 years. This allowed individuals within ASPSA to use these courses through special arrangements to maintain the eligibility of academically at-risk student-athletes, particularly in the sports of football, men's basketball and women's basketball. Although the general student body also had access to the anomalous AFRI/AFAM courses, student-athletes received preferential access to these anomalous courses, enrolled in these anomalous courses at a disproportionate rate to that of the general student body and received other impermissible benefits not available to the general student body in connection with these courses."
 
SkinsNDeacs said:
That article brings up something I haven't thought of. Self imposed sanctions. What are the chances the Heels punish basketball before the NCAA does?
Click to expand...

Since they said they're not going to? Probably not very good.

I think it's time we all moved past the AFAM-Women's Basketball scandal and get back to talking about football and transexuals.
 
deacsrus said:
What UNC should be worrying about is the NCAA denying accreditation. This would be the worst possible punishment. This would be the equivalent of the death penalty in athletics. By the way, the NCAA has been looking into just this as has been reported by different news sources. I have said since day one that this was an academia problem and not an athletic one. I look for the University to get severe sanctions, not so much the athletic department. If I'm wrong, I will eat crow here.
Click to expand...
IMO it has to be one or the other. Either sports gets hammered or academics. UNC appears to be trying to save the sports reputation and risk the academic side. Unfortunately, I can see a scenario where each enforcement body points to the other as the problem and does nothing....so they they could skate without anything major.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top