• 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!

HP's UNC-Cheat Thread - UNC comes out on top, NCAA penalized by UNC

Truly is a shame that the ncaa did not have a bi law for what happened (aka 20 years of cheating).

The myth of the student ahtlete took another hit today. NCAA does not deserve tax exempt status if they can't ensure those athletes aren't given an education.
 
jhmd2000 said:
What happened at UNC is about as obvious as you can get. The academic people wanted an AFAM department, and nobody (who wanted to stay in administration) was going to supervise it. AFAM knew it was bullet-proof at inception, and everyone else found out over time, including inter alia, a small minority of people in athletics. People who either wanted or needed a handful of easy classes had a few to pick from. Of course, the supermajority of UNC students (and athletes) didn't, but that doesn't make ABC message boards go click.

I think the NCAA does not have a bylaw that addresses what happened at UNC, UNC's lawyers knew that, and the NCAA tried three times to prove them wrong. UNC was right and in the end, the NCAA knew it, so they dropped a case they didn't have. Facts + Law + Reason = Outcome. You guys who invested emotionally invested in Pack Pride legal analysis invested...poorly.

eta: Is your theory that the NCAA has a clear by-law that addresses this conduct? In seven years, three NOAs and twenty million in legal fees later, they didn't seem to think so. Sometimes you just have to take your L and move on.
Click to expand...

The NCAA is concerned with athlete eligibility. Athletes have to meet eligibility standards to be able to play. By giving athletes class credit for classes that effectively didn't exist UNC was making athletes eligible who actually were not eligible. The NCAA should have looked at transcripts of the athletes that took the paper classes and, for those that needed those classes to be eligible in any given semester, declared them ineligible retroactively. I believe the reason the NCAA did not go down that road was that it would also call into question the diplomas of hundreds or thousands of non-athlete UNC graduates.

The NCAA could also have chosen the improper benefits angle. First of all, the classes were first created for and marketed to athletes - they were primarily for the benefit of athletes and I think it is pretty obvious that non-athlete students just figured out they were there and signed up. There is plenty of documentation of athletes being steered into the classes.
Secondly, I personally read the e-mails where athletes were added to these classes after the deadline and where athletes asked for (or the advisors asked for them) certain grades that they needed to remain eligible - and they magically received those grades. I did not see evidence of similar treatment of non-athletes.

The NCAA just took the easy way out by letting UNC off on a technicality. I hope all the UNC fans are proud and happy, just like the Penn St. fans were proud and happy when the NCAA reduced their penalties after the Sandusky scandal...
 
jhmd2000 said:
What happened at UNC is about as obvious as you can get. The academic people wanted an AFAM department, and nobody (who wanted to stay in administration) was going to supervise it. AFAM knew it was bullet-proof at inception, and everyone else found out over time, including inter alia, a small minority of people in athletics. People who either wanted or needed a handful of easy classes had a few to pick from. Of course, the supermajority of UNC students (and athletes) didn't, but that doesn't make ABC message boards go click.

I think the NCAA does not have a bylaw that addresses what happened at UNC, UNC's lawyers knew that, and the NCAA tried three times to prove them wrong. UNC was right and in the end, the NCAA knew it, so they dropped a case they didn't have. Facts + Law + Reason = Outcome. You guys who invested emotionally invested in Pack Pride legal analysis invested...poorly.

eta: Is your theory that the NCAA has a clear by-law that addresses this conduct? In seven years, three NOAs and twenty million in legal fees later, they didn't seem to think so. Sometimes you just have to take your L and move on.
Click to expand...

This is some next-level rationalization. UNC created fake classes to keep athletes eligible. They didn't create fake classes in the AFAM department for no reason, and then athletes happened to stumble upon them. Get out of here with that garbage.
 
I don't doubt at all that the NCAA statement/ruling/whatever is technically or legally correct. However, it certainly doesn't just make everything that happened at UNC go away. The fake classes thing was disgraceful, and it absolutely benefited UNC athletes, in that it kept many of them eligible or allowed them to spend less time studying/worrying about classes. And yeah, it sounds like some other regular students at UNC got that same "benefit", so it looks like that technicality trips up the NCAA. But most of the schools they compete with don't have athletes taking fake classes, so UNC did have an advantage in that regard. The fact is this: UNC (a university) fielded sports teams for a decade plus that were littered with kids that were taking fake classes. So maybe that wasn't technically "illegal", but it sure is shitty. And even if the NCAA had to shrug its shoulders today and say "sorry, there wasn't really anything we could do"; for a lot of people across the country, "fake classes" is still the first thing that will pop into their head when they hear "UNC athletics" .
 
Have any disgruntled ex-UNC athletes (McCants?) sued the school? Would be interesting to see how that would play out with them being "forced" to take sham classes, and then any that graduated having their degrees significantly devalued (potentially).
 
tigerswood said:
Have any disgruntled ex-UNC athletes (McCants?) sued the school? Would be interesting to see how that would play out with them being "forced" to take sham classes, and then any that graduated having their degrees significantly devalued (potentially).
Click to expand...

believe that FB player Michael McAdoo had sued them. not $ure it ever went anywhere.
 
Rafi said:
This is some next-level rationalization. UNC created fake classes to keep athletes eligible. They didn't create fake classes in the AFAM department for no reason, and then athletes happened to stumble upon them. Get out of here with that garbage.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you're totally right. The NCAA knew it. They spent seven years and tens of millions of dollars to prove it, have convincing evidence of your feelings, and then folded without explanation. Case closed.

If you have to decide between the opinions of millions of dollars worth of attorneys in an adversarial process that seemingly agree on the proper outcome on one hand, and the legal opinions of Pack Pride message board posters on the other, I mean, you do you.
 
Last edited:
jhmd2000 said:
What happened at UNC is about as obvious as you can get. The academic people wanted an AFAM department, and nobody (who wanted to stay in administration) was going to supervise it. AFAM knew it was bullet-proof at inception, and everyone else found out over time, including inter alia, a small minority of people in athletics. People who either wanted or needed a handful of easy classes had a few to pick from. Of course, the supermajority of UNC students (and athletes) didn't, but that doesn't make ABC message boards go click.

I think the NCAA does not have a bylaw that addresses what happened at UNC, UNC's lawyers knew that, and the NCAA tried three times to prove them wrong. UNC was right and in the end, the NCAA knew it, so they dropped a case they didn't have. Facts + Law + Reason = Outcome. You guys who invested emotionally invested in Pack Pride legal analysis invested...poorly.

eta: Is your theory that the NCAA has a clear by-law that addresses this conduct? In seven years, three NOAs and twenty million in legal fees later, they didn't seem to think so. Sometimes you just have to take your L and move on.
Click to expand...


Say what? So the professors in that group just said "Ha ha, no one is supervising us! We can do sham classes! Just what I've worked my whole life to do!"
 
Bubble Boy said:
Say what? So the professors in that group just said "Ha ha, no one is supervising us! We can do sham classes! Just what I've worked my whole life to do!"
Click to expand...

Have you read the report? And it wasn't professors. You should probably read the report.
 
scooter84 said:
The NCAA is concerned with athlete eligibility. Athletes have to meet eligibility standards to be able to play. By giving athletes class credit for classes that effectively didn't exist UNC was making athletes eligible who actually were not eligible. The NCAA should have looked at transcripts of the athletes that took the paper classes and, for those that needed those classes to be eligible in any given semester, declared them ineligible retroactively. I believe the reason the NCAA did not go down that road was that it would also call into question the diplomas of hundreds or thousands of non-athlete UNC graduates.

The NCAA could also have chosen the improper benefits angle. First of all, the classes were first created for and marketed to athletes - they were primarily for the benefit of athletes and I think it is pretty obvious that non-athlete students just figured out they were there and signed up. There is plenty of documentation of athletes being steered into the classes.
Secondly, I personally read the e-mails where athletes were added to these classes after the deadline and where athletes asked for (or the advisors asked for them) certain grades that they needed to remain eligible - and they magically received those grades. I did not see evidence of similar treatment of non-athletes.

The NCAA just took the easy way out by letting UNC off on a technicality. I hope all the UNC fans are proud and happy, just like the Penn St. fans were proud and happy when the NCAA reduced their penalties after the Sandusky scandal...
Click to expand...

Weirdly, the statement explicitly says (to my memory) that the classes weren't created for athletes and that the athletes weren't funneled into them when they discuss waiving those violations. Which... I read the same emails you did. Mystified.
 
Milhouse said:
oh even you aren't this dumb
Click to expand...

It's one thing to be wrong before the fact (you and Wrangor, for instance. Not me. I bet Wrangor UNC would skate. I was right. You can tell because I was expressing an opinion, which I don't do unless I am right.).

It's another to be wrong after the fact. That's a gift you've got, Millhouse. Don't let anyone take it away from you.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I'm sure you're totally right. The NCAA knew it. They spent seven years and tens of millions of dollars to prove it, have convincing evidence of your feelings, and then folded without explanation. Case closed.

If you have to decide between the opinions of millions of dollars worth of attorneys in an adversarial process that seemingly agree on the proper outcome on one hand, and the legal opinions of Pack Pride message board posters on the other, I mean, you do you.
Click to expand...

You're lying to yourself. You know the classes were created by super fan Debbie Crowder to keep athletes eligible.
 
jhmd2000 said:
I'm sure you're totally right. The NCAA knew it. They spent seven years and tens of millions of dollars to prove it, have convincing evidence of your feelings, and then folded without explanation. Case closed.

If you have to decide between the opinions of millions of dollars worth of attorneys in an adversarial process that seemingly agree on the proper outcome on one hand, and the legal opinions of Pack Pride message board posters on the other, I mean, you do you.
Click to expand...

They folded because the FBI is currently showing how much of a joke they are on another front, for which they are about to have to devote a lot of resources, and they didn't want to deal with another 5 years of UNC lawyer appeals on an area where their jurisdiction was being heavily questioned. Basically, they pussied out and are now going to go after the easy kills (bribery, pay for play, etc). Thinking that they folded because there was no case, is hilariously incorrect.
 
tigerswood said:
They folded because the FBI is currently showing how much of a joke they are on another front, for which they are about to have to devote a lot of resources, and they didn't want to deal with another 5 years of UNC lawyer appeals on an area where their jurisdiction was being heavily questioned. Basically, they pussied out and are now going to go after the easy kills (bribery, pay for play, etc). Thinking that they folded because there was no case, is hilariously incorrect.
Click to expand...

Jay Bias must be hilariously incorrect. UNC's lawyers must have been hilariously incorrect. The NCAA must have been hilariously incorrect and afraid of an FBI investigation into Louisville et al that hadn't yet begun when they twice amended the NOA.

Stop getting legal opinions from NC State message boards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top