(08-03-2016 11:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 11:01 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 09:38 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:40 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  You guys seem to forget that the NCAA jurisdiction is athletics and not academics. It is in their freaking bylaws and the charges are well passed the NCAA's own statue of limitations. What was it 4 years? Xlance is correct and apology is warranted. By the way, the accreditation organization placed UNC on probation last year and we meet all requirements to right whatever wrongs that occurred. As a result of meeting their demands, no further punishment was issued. The probation period ended in June. Guys, don't be like the tin foil hat group know as PackPride.

This does involve athletics. A fake class was invented to help keep athletes eligible. Let's be honest, that's cheating. It is true that non athletes were also taking the class which brought in the accreditation into questioning. It is delusional to say that the NCAA owes NC an apology for investigating the claims. I'm saying that NC response doesn't have some merit but it doesn't change the FACT that NC is guilty. I'm not clear on the NCAA rules on the statute of limitations but I can't believe that intentionally dragging an investigation out for so long means that you get to skate. The death penalty isn't warranted here, IMO, but a post season ban for basketball & football is. Take away a minimal number of scholarships from all sports involved & put NC on probation for a few years & call it resolved.

And there is the problem. I suggest you look at Unverified or actually read the actual 7 investigations. The false narrative was parroted so much that people believed it. There was no fake classes. The grading in that class was extremely lenient. You have no clue to what you are talking about for if you did, you would no that it wasn't an athletic issue.

Were players encouraged to take those "lenient" classes? What was the ratio of athletes to non-athletes? How does that compare to the rest of the school?

What was the percentage of African-American students in the African-American Studies classes?
We know the African-American student population was less than 5% of the entire UG student population when the classes started (550-700 students).
What was the percentage of those African-American students were athletes?
We know the all of the classes in question were taught by only one militant professor, who was the Dean of the Department.
We also know that over the span of time in which the classes were taught it involved about 100 students per calendar year.

Mark, your questions are bogus.

If all of the African-American Studies students were African-Americans and 25% of all of the athletes on campus were African-Americans and the percentage of athletes in the classes was 25%....where is the problem?

Of course this is not true. But unless you have the correct information the questions that you posed are meaningless and unfortunately full of innuendo and disdain.
I used to think highly of you.....but no more.

UNC you Fem, meet me back by the Large Oak tree during recess...unless you're chicken!

(08-03-2016 01:41 PM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 11:57 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 11:01 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 09:38 AM)Lenvillecards Wrote:  

(08-03-2016 08:40 AM)Indytarheel Wrote:  You guys seem to forget that the NCAA jurisdiction is athletics and not academics. It is in their freaking bylaws and the charges are well passed the NCAA's own statue of limitations. What was it 4 years? Xlance is correct and apology is warranted. By the way, the accreditation organization placed UNC on probation last year and we meet all requirements to right whatever wrongs that occurred. As a result of meeting their demands, no further punishment was issued. The probation period ended in June. Guys, don't be like the tin foil hat group know as PackPride.

This does involve athletics. A fake class was invented to help keep athletes eligible. Let's be honest, that's cheating. It is true that non athletes were also taking the class which brought in the accreditation into questioning. It is delusional to say that the NCAA owes NC an apology for investigating the claims. I'm saying that NC response doesn't have some merit but it doesn't change the FACT that NC is guilty. I'm not clear on the NCAA rules on the statute of limitations but I can't believe that intentionally dragging an investigation out for so long means that you get to skate. The death penalty isn't warranted here, IMO, but a post season ban for basketball & football is. Take away a minimal number of scholarships from all sports involved & put NC on probation for a few years & call it resolved.

And there is the problem. I suggest you look at Unverified or actually read the actual 7 investigations. The false narrative was parroted so much that people believed it. There was no fake classes. The grading in that class was extremely lenient. You have no clue to what you are talking about for if you did, you would no that it wasn't an athletic issue.

Were players encouraged to take those "lenient" classes? What was the ratio of athletes to non-athletes? How does that compare to the rest of the school?

What was the percentage of African-American students in the African-American Studies classes?
We know the African-American student population was less than 5% of the entire UG student population when the classes started (550-700 students).
What was the percentage of those African-American students were athletes?
We know the all of the classes in question were taught by only one militant professor, who was the Dean of the Department.
We also know that over the span of time in which the classes were taught it involved about 100 students per calendar year.

Mark, your questions are bogus.

If all of the African-American Studies students were African-Americans and 25% of all of the athletes on campus were African-Americans and the percentage of athletes in the classes was 25%....where is the problem?

Of course this is not true. But unless you have the correct information the questions that you posed are meaningless and unfortunately full of innuendo and disdain.
I used to think highly of you.....but no more.

Who knew that asking a few questions could change the way you think of me that much! Honestly, I don't know the answer to my questions. I was thinking maybe you could answer them. At any rate, they are certainly not "bogus".

If UNC was in fact steering athletes who otherwise couldn't pass into classes so easy as to be unworthy of the school - that is certainly a problem.

I tease Tar Heel fans a lot, but truthfully I don't want to see UNC punished severely... I just take exception to those who seem to claim it did nothing wrong.

The technicality I see UNC leveraging is that many of the allegations in the last report occurred prior to the previous NoA. For example (I don't know the exact dates), UNC was "punished" for incidents that occurred between 2002 and 2010. The NCAA can't come in now and say, "we found 3 more football players from 2005 so we are going to add scholarship restrictions."

The NCAAs jurisdiction is not just athletics. There are volumes of rules for academics.

I really think this has more to do with political correctness than athletics. You have a department head that was not subjected to normal oversight because of political correctness.

Does this mean that UNC-P isn't going to lose scholarships and be put on probation? What about UNC-G? No one really expected UNC-CH to be punished did they?