• 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

Still think UNC will roll the dice and dare the NCAA to drop the hammer on them. UNC believes they're above SMU. Syracuse (and Boeheim), and Penn State (and Paterno). They won't willingly give up a shot at another title or take down 2 banners. It's all or nothing for them and they're all in. Scary thing is that UNC is a stronger school academically than SMU, Syracuse, and Penn State, so UNC will take both athletic and academic hits.

Totally agree. And totally thing they will lose.
 
Are we certain about this? I couldn't find anything in the NOA that alleged that UNC had used ineligible athletes. I also read that athletes can't be ruled ineligible based on receiving nonmonetary impermissable benefits, which is the entirety of allegation #1. I want to see UNC get hit hard as much as anyone but I think they may have scored an early victory with the NCAA by avoiding allegations of using ineligible athletes.

On a completely different point, I find it interesting that the other big allegation (the LOIC) was basically brought against the academic side of the house. It wasn't brought against the athletic department. Will that influence anything during the penalty phase?

I don't see how that is the case. If not for the fake/sham classes the players would have been academically ineligible. I don't see how that can just get swept under the rug because it doesn't have a "monetary" value. Hell, almost half of the athletes shouldn't have been on the field in multiple sports due to being academically ineligible, should have probably not been in school at all. Wins are coming off and penalties are coming.

As to your second point the way i've seen several people interpret the information, it was broken down as an academic issue set up by the athletic department, making it an athletic issue. It will not be a "academic issue only" as UNC has wished for the last few years.
 
I don't see how that is the case. If not for the fake/sham classes the players would have been academically ineligible. I don't see how that can just get swept under the rug because it doesn't have a "monetary" value. Hell, almost half of the athletes shouldn't have been on the field in multiple sports due to being academically ineligible, should have probably not been in school at all. Wins are coming off and penalties are coming.

As to your second point the way i've seen several people interpret the information, it was broken down as an academic issue set up by the athletic department, making it an athletic issue. It will not be a "academic issue only" as UNC has wished for the last few years.

Hmmmmmm.
 

So you disagree that the players who took the fake classes wouldn't have failed out of school if not for the no show/no work needed A's and B's they received? The redacted documents and information being read through by the PP sleuths is impressive. Boxil adding complete paragraphs and chunks to papers for students, allowing a student to use the same paper for two separate finals as their "final presentation" and the list goes on.
 
Are we certain about this? I couldn't find anything in the NOA that alleged that UNC had used ineligible athletes. I also read that athletes can't be ruled ineligible based on receiving nonmonetary impermissable benefits, which is the entirety of allegation #1. I want to see UNC get hit hard as much as anyone but I think they may have scored an early victory with the NCAA by avoiding allegations of using ineligible athletes.

On a completely different point, I find it interesting that the other big allegation (the LOIC) was basically brought against the academic side of the house. It wasn't brought against the athletic department. Will that influence anything during the penalty phase?

I am extrapolating, 94. What the NOA said was that there were 10 athletes who used more Independent Study hours than was permissible under UNC's own regulations. I interpreted that as athletes that should have been declared ineligible. Perhaps a leap on my part.
 
So you disagree that the players who took the fake classes wouldn't have failed out of school if not for the no show/no work needed A's and B's they received? The redacted documents and information being read through by the PP sleuths is impressive. Boxil adding complete paragraphs and chunks to papers for students, allowing a student to use the same paper for two separate finals as their "final presentation" and the list goes on.

Who hurt you?
 
I don't see how that is the case. If not for the fake/sham classes the players would have been academically ineligible. I don't see how that can just get swept under the rug because it doesn't have a "monetary" value. Hell, almost half of the athletes shouldn't have been on the field in multiple sports due to being academically ineligible, should have probably not been in school at all. Wins are coming off and penalties are coming.
IMO it's going to get swept under the rug and that report was step 1 for the reasons Deac94 laid out. They intentionally made it fuzzy and non-descript. It makes it hard to discuss and there's lots of wiggle room for them not to do anything. There are even conflicting issues like what you point out. Those are features not bugs. It's just a huge mess and the only way to get out of it is to point fingers at academics, fix it quietly, and move on. UNC is apparently too big to fail in the eyes of the NCAA....this time....but I bet they will be on a short leash from now on.

"The Carolina Way" is over either way. Doesn't matter if they get hammered or not. This whole thing feels a lot like OJ. He got off and his backers rejoiced, but it wasn't like he gained any respect.

I'm just wondering if anyone has the nads to open up the rest of the UNC story...the non-athlete aspect. That's where this could go down the road. That's the risk UNC is taking.
 
I am extrapolating, 94. What the NOA said was that there were 10 athletes who used more Independent Study hours than was permissible under UNC's own regulations. I interpreted that as athletes that should have been declared ineligible. Perhaps a leap on my part.

I thought the same thing the first time that I read it, but notice that the allegation with the 10 ten athletes was part of allegation #1 which relates to just one NCAA bylaw (16.11.2.1). Because it was a violation of UNC policy, and not an NCAA eligibility issue, I think they rolled it up into the nonmonetary impermissable benefit allegation.

I think you make very good points about the number of Level 1 allegations. I think the full spectrum of penalties like fines, probation, scholarship reductions and postseason bans are on the table. I'm just worried that removing banners and forfeiting previous wins may be off the table. I am hoping that I am wrong.
 
I don't see how that is the case. If not for the fake/sham classes the players would have been academically ineligible. I don't see how that can just get swept under the rug because it doesn't have a "monetary" value. Hell, almost half of the athletes shouldn't have been on the field in multiple sports due to being academically ineligible, should have probably not been in school at all. Wins are coming off and penalties are coming.

As to your second point the way i've seen several people interpret the information, it was broken down as an academic issue set up by the athletic department, making it an athletic issue. It will not be a "academic issue only" as UNC has wished for the last few years.

That is exactly correct and what we all hope the NCAA says. We all wondered why for all these years they never had anybody on academic probation like all the rest of the schools had at least a few times. Now we know! They had all these "paper classes" that kept everybody eligible. Julius Peppers should have been ineligible his entire junior year with a 1.7 GPA but they paid no mind to it and he was propped up only by the 16 or so AFAM classes of the 28 total classes that he took.

But like I said before, the NCAA is probably so mad at UNC that they will put Longwood on probation [to borrow a similar phrase from the late Tark the Shark]
 
IMO it's going to get swept under the rug and that report was step 1 for the reasons Deac94 laid out. They intentionally made it fuzzy and non-descript. It makes it hard to discuss and there's lots of wiggle room for them not to do anything. There are even conflicting issues like what you point out. Those are features not bugs. It's just a huge mess and the only way to get out of it is to point fingers at academics, fix it quietly, and move on. UNC is apparently too big to fail in the eyes of the NCAA....this time....but I bet they will be on a short leash from now on.

"The Carolina Way" is over either way. Doesn't matter if they get hammered or not. This whole thing feels a lot like OJ. He got off and his backers rejoiced, but it wasn't like he gained any respect.

I'm just wondering if anyone has the nads to open up the rest of the UNC story...the non-athlete aspect. That's where this could go down the road. That's the risk UNC is taking.

To me that's the whole thing in a nutshell: at Wake our admin. would be trying to dump this whole thing off on the athletic dept., penalties be damned, b/c the most important thing is the integrity of your core academic reputation and not some guys who are there mostly to "ball". And I think most Wake students and alumni would agree with that stance. As much as we like pulling for our sports teams, how many of us went to Wake b/c of our love and devotion for the Deacs? At Holeville OTOH a fair number of alumni grew up worshiping the baby blue and spent 4 years sniffing jocks every chance they got.
 
IMO it's going to get swept under the rug and that report was step 1 for the reasons Deac94 laid out. They intentionally made it fuzzy and non-descript. It makes it hard to discuss and there's lots of wiggle room for them not to do anything. There are even conflicting issues like what you point out. Those are features not bugs. It's just a huge mess and the only way to get out of it is to point fingers at academics, fix it quietly, and move on. UNC is apparently too big to fail in the eyes of the NCAA....this time....but I bet they will be on a short leash from now on.

"The Carolina Way" is over either way. Doesn't matter if they get hammered or not. This whole thing feels a lot like OJ. He got off and his backers rejoiced, but it wasn't like he gained any respect.

I'm just wondering if anyone has the nads to open up the rest of the UNC story...the non-athlete aspect. That's where this could go down the road. That's the risk UNC is taking.

Why charge UNC at all then? They could have just said it was an academic thing, "Nothing to see here" and called it a day.

To me, I think the most damning thing I read was an e-mail exchange between one of the Academic Advisers (Brent Blanton - I forget for which sport) and Amy Herman, who at the time was Assistant AD in charge of Compliance, about an athlete teetering on ineligibility.

Herman says to Blanton, "Are you going to put (the athlete) in one of your "infamous paper classes" in order to maintain the athletes eligibility. Blanton responds with something like, "Maybe it is one of the paper classes, maybe it isn't." To which Herman says, "It IS one of those "paper classes." Blanton responds along the lines of, you have to go with what is tried and true, or with what works, something like that.

Assistant AD in charge of Compliance, guys. This is a slam dunk for the NCAA. The level of hubris and arrogance between some of the various players is remarkable. You have e-mails from Jan Boxill in which she admits that the player in question turned in a recycled paper and then asks Debbie Crowder to just give her a D because that's all she needs to maintain her eligibility. It's unreal.
 
Here is the actual exchange:

The paper classes were “infamous,” to borrow the term used by former associate athletics director for compliance Amy Herman in an email to Blanton about a female student-athlete in May 2008.

“Have you gotten (redacted) in a 2nd session class? If so, is it an online class? Don’t think so - probably one of your infamous ‘paper courses.’ Let me know,” Herman wrote.

“Don’t knock what gets it done,” Blanton replied. “I saw her today, so I should get her registered today.”

“So it IS a ‘paper course’? :)” Herman responded.

“I’m not saying it is,” Blanton responded, “and I’m not saying it isn’t.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23137089.html#storylink=cpy
 
Here is the actual exchange:

The paper classes were “infamous,” to borrow the term used by former associate athletics director for compliance Amy Herman in an email to Blanton about a female student-athlete in May 2008.

“Have you gotten (redacted) in a 2nd session class? If so, is it an online class? Don’t think so - probably one of your infamous ‘paper courses.’ Let me know,” Herman wrote.

“Don’t knock what gets it done,” Blanton replied. “I saw her today, so I should get her registered today.”

“So it IS a ‘paper course’? :)” Herman responded.

“I’m not saying it is,” Blanton responded, “and I’m not saying it isn’t.”

Read more here: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article23137089.html#storylink=cpy

The Carolina Way
 
B83-n0cCUAMleEN.png
 
Why charge UNC at all then? They could have just said it was an academic thing, "Nothing to see here" and called it a day.

To me, I think the most damning thing I read was an e-mail exchange between one of the Academic Advisers (Brent Blanton - I forget for which sport) and Amy Herman, who at the time was Assistant AD in charge of Compliance, about an athlete teetering on ineligibility.

Herman says to Blanton, "Are you going to put (the athlete) in one of your "infamous paper classes" in order to maintain the athletes eligibility. Blanton responds with something like, "Maybe it is one of the paper classes, maybe it isn't." To which Herman says, "It IS one of those "paper classes." Blanton responds along the lines of, you have to go with what is tried and true, or with what works, something like that.

Assistant AD in charge of Compliance, guys. This is a slam dunk for the NCAA. The level of hubris and arrogance between some of the various players is remarkable. You have e-mails from Jan Boxill in which she admits that the player in question turned in a recycled paper and then asks Debbie Crowder to just give her a D because that's all she needs to maintain her eligibility. It's unreal.
IMO....they had to make it as big of a deal as they could because that's their purpose. This thing kept trickling out....getting worse and worse. UNC refused to really take it seriously while protecting their sports (and hoping to protect their academic scams), and the NCAA had to do something to them before UNC made it even worse. So I think they'll hammer women's bb as the deflection..."look we did something big". They'll rationalize that football was already dealt with but maybe do something small to say, "see we'll take it a step further". They might reduce a token scholly to men's bb as a general sanction, like that'll really matter. They'll blame the rest on academic issues. I'll be stunned if they do something worse. Too big to fail...too much $$$ involved.

I think everyone involved sees what UNC was really doing...hiding academic issues of ALL sorts in this manner and then using the numbers to protect/hide athletes. I've heard some really disturbing stories over the years, even in the professional schools. This crap just validates it all.
 
Last edited:
IMO....they had to make it as big of a deal as they could because that's their purpose. This thing kept trickling out....getting worse and worse. UNC refused to really take it seriously while protecting their sports (and hoping to protect their academic scams), and the NCAA had to do something to them before UNC made it even worse. So I think they'll hammer women's bb as the deflection..."look we did something big". They'll rationalize that football was already dealt with but maybe do something small to say, "see we'll take it a step further". They might reduce a token scholly to men's bb as a general sanction, like that'll really matter. They'll blame the rest on academic issues. I'll be stunned if they do something worse. Too big to fail...too much $$$ involved.

I think everyone involved sees what UNC was really doing...hiding academic issues of ALL sorts in this manner and then using the numbers to protect/hide athletes. I've heard some really disturbing stories over the years, even in the professional schools. This crap just validates it all.

Correct me if I am wrong but the people that wrote the NOA is not the same people that will decide the punishment. If that is the case it is hard for them to have that train of thought.
 
I think that's correct. Also, I don't get the "too big to fail" type posts. NCAA makes most of their money off the basketball tourney and that money is coming in with or without UNC. Unless we are saying they are getting $$$ from individual schools which I don't think is the case. I still think they are going to get hammered. The details are just so damning they almost have to, especially given the Cuse and USC sanctions
 
The Enforcement Staff writes and serves the NOA. They are essentially the "Accuser". The school submits a response and both sides attempt to prove their case to the Commiitee on Infractions (COI). At least that's how I think it works.

Enforcement staff = Prosecutor
COI = Judge/Jury
 
Exactly. So the NOA was not written with the future infraction in mind. Unless you are into conspiracy theories.
 
Exactly. So the NOA was not written with the future infraction in mind. Unless you are into conspiracy theories.
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.
 
Back
Top