August 17th should mark the beginning of the end of the UNC infractions case:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...78147.html

I bet there are many ADs, coaches, and university presidents quietly rooting for UNC to get only a slap on the wrist.

Not because anyone approves of a 20-year scheme of sham classes, but because if the NCAA can whack a school hard for steering athletes to bogus courses, then there are a whole lot of things the NCAA could go after. It would be a big power grab for the enforcers.

The easy way out is to issue mild penalties for things like not fully cooperating with investigators or not closely monitoring the academic supervision of athletes. I suppose that in several months, we will see whether they decided to take the easy approach or the aggressive approach.

(08-14-2017 11:30 PM)JRsec Wrote:  August 17th should mark the beginning of the end of the UNC infractions case:

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/colle...78147.html

Read it if you dare and don't miss all of the links.

http://chapelboro.com/sports/unc-sports/...n-unc-case

(08-15-2017 01:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I bet there are many ADs, coaches, and university presidents quietly rooting for UNC to get only a slap on the wrist.

Not because anyone approves of a 20-year scheme of sham classes, but because if the NCAA can whack a school hard for steering athletes to bogus courses, then there are a whole lot of things the NCAA could go after. It would be a big power grab for the enforcers.

The easy way out is to issue mild penalties for things like not fully cooperating with investigators or not closely monitoring the academic supervision of athletes. I suppose that in several months, we will see whether they decided to take the easy approach or the aggressive approach.

from the article:
As Jay Bilas remarked in a recent interview, “They’re breaking their own rules to try to punish North Carolina.” In so doing, the NCAA is advancing an interpretation of the bylaw that can’t possibly be applied consistently. Are they going to start regulating academic counselors’ professional relationships with faculty or prohibiting counselors from registering student-athletes for tutoring appointments? If the Committee On Infractions (COI) upholds the NCAA’s case against UNC, a precedent would be set to justify dictating what models and practices academic support programs can and can’t adopt. Ultimately, restricting academic counselors would only harm student-athletes.

If truly concerned with “maximizing the academic performances of student-athletes,” the NCAA should acknowledge that academic counseling is not within their purview. Their handling of the UNC case poses a far greater threat to student-athletes’ academic and long-term success than the UNC academic counselors ever did.

(08-15-2017 07:35 AM)XLance Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 01:19 AM)Wedge Wrote:  I bet there are many ADs, coaches, and university presidents quietly rooting for UNC to get only a slap on the wrist.

Not because anyone approves of a 20-year scheme of sham classes, but because if the NCAA can whack a school hard for steering athletes to bogus courses, then there are a whole lot of things the NCAA could go after. It would be a big power grab for the enforcers.

The easy way out is to issue mild penalties for things like not fully cooperating with investigators or not closely monitoring the academic supervision of athletes. I suppose that in several months, we will see whether they decided to take the easy approach or the aggressive approach.

from the article:
As Jay Bilas remarked in a recent interview, “They’re breaking their own rules to try to punish North Carolina.” In so doing, the NCAA is advancing an interpretation of the bylaw that can’t possibly be applied consistently. Are they going to start regulating academic counselors’ professional relationships with faculty or prohibiting counselors from registering student-athletes for tutoring appointments? If the Committee On Infractions (COI) upholds the NCAA’s case against UNC, a precedent would be set to justify dictating what models and practices academic support programs can and can’t adopt. Ultimately, restricting academic counselors would only harm student-athletes.

If truly concerned with “maximizing the academic performances of student-athletes,” the NCAA should acknowledge that academic counseling is not within their purview. Their handling of the UNC case poses a far greater threat to student-athletes’ academic and long-term success than the UNC academic counselors ever did.

Now that is interesting.

But, it's telling in its own way. The NCAA need not go down that rabbit hole. If they are, which they appear to be, they seem to be purposefully leaving an out.

My opinion, while not popular here but I believe is absolutely correct, is that there should be a complete and total firewall between the NCAA and anything that happens outside a school's athletic dept and athletic dept staff.

If academic counselors, who weren't working for the athletic dept, took it upon themselves to invent fake courses and then took it upon themselves to steer student-athletes to those courses ...... of course that's wrong, and some sort of punishment to those people should be given. The school of course should review its processes to make sure it can't happen again. But none of that has or should have anything to do with the NCAA. The athletic dept staff can't be 24/7 policeman, running about looking for any possible trace of any wrongdoing whatsoever that might possible involve any student-athlete.


Otherwise, what essentially would be the case is that the NCAA is telling athletic dept staff that "if you don't know every single detail and can't account for every possible action and second of time of every student-athlete at the school, then you're breaking an NCAA rule that says you must have absolute and total control over your student-athletes, and therefore we can punish you". Such interpretation are horse manure, and the school should threaten to sue the NCAA if the punishments are in any way excessive (ie, more than wrist slaps).

(08-15-2017 09:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  My opinion, while not popular here but I believe is absolutely correct, is that there should be a complete and total firewall between the NCAA and anything that happens outside a school's athletic dept and athletic dept staff.

If academic counselors, who weren't working for the athletic dept, took it upon themselves to invent fake courses and then took it upon themselves to steer student-athletes to those courses ...... of course that's wrong, and some sort of punishment to those people should be given. The school of course should review its processes to make sure it can't happen again. But none of that has or should have anything to do with the NCAA. The athletic dept staff can't be 24/7 policeman, running about looking for any possible trace of any wrongdoing whatsoever that might possible involve any student-athlete.

I'm largely in agreement with you when it comes to the NCAA not having any justifiable business delving into anything outside the athletic department.

That said, the idea that the infamous lack of institutional control rule was based on should act as a catchall.

I agree the athletic department cannot be a policeman, but they should not be allowed to bury their head in the sand while reaping the benefits.

The trigger should be the second point, culpable conduct whereby an athletic department refuses to see. But, it should go no further than that.

(08-15-2017 09:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The trigger should be the second point, culpable conduct whereby an athletic department refuses to see. But, it should go no further than that.

This sounds fine on paper, to me.

But how do you prove a person in the athletic dept should have caught this? Even "reasonably should have"??


I think you would need an email/text message between a staffer and a staff manager asking if these courses "looked normal" and then being told not to investigate it further. But honestly .... the UNC classes had legit names, and it was a legit dept. What coach in his right mind is going up to an athlete and saying "You're taking Afro-American Studies course? That's not a real course, drop it." ??? Otherwise, can you really expect the athletic dept staff to investigate every course that every student-athlete signs up for, to see if it really is legit? Gonna interview every professor and dean? Come on ...

(08-15-2017 09:45 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 09:43 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  The trigger should be the second point, culpable conduct whereby an athletic department refuses to see. But, it should go no further than that.

This sounds fine on paper.

But how do you prove a person in the athletic dept should have caught this? Even "reasonably should have"??

It would be the same way we prove it in our legal system.

You apply a standard and then a burden for reaching that standard.

The standard should be that of a reasonably prudent individual.

That's like replying to the question "how do you climb a mountain" by saying "well, what you need to do is climb the mountain".

I'm asking for just a little bit more depth than that ...


How would YOU attempt to prove that a reasonably prudent person would have caught those classes? What hard evidence would you need to prove that someone was culpable for being willfully ignorant?

If you don't know, fine. I don't know, obviously. Just thought you might have a bit of insight given your (former?) profession ...

(08-15-2017 09:37 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  My opinion, while not popular here but I believe is absolutely correct, is that there should be a complete and total firewall between the NCAA and anything that happens outside a school's athletic dept and athletic dept staff.

If academic counselors, who weren't working for the athletic dept, took it upon themselves to invent fake courses and then took it upon themselves to steer student-athletes to those courses ...... of course that's wrong, and some sort of punishment to those people should be given. The school of course should review its processes to make sure it can't happen again. But none of that has or should have anything to do with the NCAA. The athletic dept staff can't be 24/7 policeman, running about looking for any possible trace of any wrongdoing whatsoever that might possible involve any student-athlete.


Otherwise, what essentially would be the case is that the NCAA is telling athletic dept staff that "if you don't know every single detail and can't account for every possible action and second of time of every student-athlete at the school, then you're breaking an NCAA rule that says you must have absolute and total control over your student-athletes, and therefore we can punish you". Such interpretation are horse manure, and the school should threaten to sue the NCAA if the punishments are in any way excessive (ie, more than wrist slaps).

Whatever happened to the culpability that goes along with intending to obfuscate and deceive? Fake classes were offered, fake grades were given, and those fake classes were billed. That's fraud. The fact that the athletic department can't police the university is precisely why the university is held responsible. That again is the essence of "Lack of Institutional Control" because the institution has designed the "Lack" so that they don't have to claim "Control".

And a point that never gets addressed here is that the NCAA has the right to punish the school. Why? Because the damned school joined the NCAA and ceded them the right by becoming a member of their association. If UNC doesn't like what the NCAA does in response to their egregious violations they have the right to withdraw if they do not wish to suffer the penalty.

The whole legal argument that the UNC lawyers are putting forth merely highlights the careful obfuscation that the University perpetrated in order to cheat. Their very legal argument is essentially an admission of their guilt.

Bison your position here is consistent, but reflective of the kind of argumentation that anarchists like to perpetuate. No ability to govern wrongdoing is by definition anarchy.

BTW the ONLY professor involved was the Dean of the department.

From what it sounds like, the only potential violation here would be if anyone in the AD was directing kids to take these courses with the knowledge that there was something amiss. Of course, you'd have to be able to prove that.

Other than that, it would seem to be a matter for the school to handle.

(08-15-2017 10:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Whatever happened to the culpability that goes along with intending to obfuscate and deceive? Fake classes were offered, fake grades were given, and those fake classes were billed. That's fraud. The fact that the athletic department can't police the university is precisely why the university is held responsible. That again is the essence of "Lack of Institutional Control" because the institution has designed the "Lack" so that they don't have to claim "Control".

And a point that never gets addressed here is that the NCAA has the right to punish the school. Why? Because the damned school joined the NCAA and ceded them the right by becoming a member of their association. If UNC doesn't like what the NCAA does in response to their egregious violations they have the right to withdraw if they do not wish to suffer the penalty.

The whole legal argument that the UNC lawyers are putting forth merely highlights the careful obfuscation that the University perpetrated in order to cheat. Their very legal argument is essentially an admission of their guilt.

Bison your position here is consistent, but reflective of the kind of argumentation that anarchists like to perpetuate. No ability to govern wrongdoing is by definition anarchy.

With all due respect sir, and you're due plenty of it, I don't think you understand my point.

I was in no way, shape, or form saying that the school did nothing wrong, or that the school shouldn't be punished.


My point has entirely to do with who should be doing the punishing! In my opinion, the NCAA should not have jurisdiction to have a say in the matter, because the wrongdoing happened outside the athletic dept and, as far as I can tell, it would have been far beyond the reasonable scope of athletic dept staff to have caught the fake classes.

On the other hand, the Dept of Education absolutely should have a say in the matter. The accrediting body should have a say in the matter. Even the FBI, if you like, should have a say in the matter.


Again, what happened was wrong. And again, UNC perhaps should be punished for it. But not by the NCAA.

Don't see why that is so hard for you to accept. Don't see why you want, so badly, for the NCAA to be the one wielding the hammer. Why not the Dept of Education? Why not the accrediting body? Why aren't those good enough for you? Why does it have to be the NCAA???

(08-15-2017 09:57 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  That's like replying to the question "how do you climb a mountain" by saying "well, what you need to do is climb the mountain".

I'm asking for just a little bit more depth than that ...


How would YOU attempt to prove that a reasonably prudent person would have caught those classes? What hard evidence would you need to prove that someone was culpable for being willfully ignorant?

If you don't know, fine. I don't know, obviously. Just thought you might have a bit of insight given your (former?) profession ...

This will sound funny, but that answer is deceptively complete.

Does that mean you don't have a good answer, or you're purposefully choosing not to elaborate?

Either is fine, I really was just curious.

(08-15-2017 10:23 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 10:11 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Whatever happened to the culpability that goes along with intending to obfuscate and deceive? Fake classes were offered, fake grades were given, and those fake classes were billed. That's fraud. The fact that the athletic department can't police the university is precisely why the university is held responsible. That again is the essence of "Lack of Institutional Control" because the institution has designed the "Lack" so that they don't have to claim "Control".

And a point that never gets addressed here is that the NCAA has the right to punish the school. Why? Because the damned school joined the NCAA and ceded them the right by becoming a member of their association. If UNC doesn't like what the NCAA does in response to their egregious violations they have the right to withdraw if they do not wish to suffer the penalty.

The whole legal argument that the UNC lawyers are putting forth merely highlights the careful obfuscation that the University perpetrated in order to cheat. Their very legal argument is essentially an admission of their guilt.

Bison your position here is consistent, but reflective of the kind of argumentation that anarchists like to perpetuate. No ability to govern wrongdoing is by definition anarchy.

With all due respect sir, and you're due plenty of it, I don't think you understand my point.

I was in no way, shape, or form saying that the school did nothing wrong, or that the school shouldn't be punished.


My point has entirely to do with who should be doing the punishing! In my opinion, the NCAA should not have jurisdiction to have a say in the matter, because the wrongdoing happened outside the athletic dept and, as far as I can tell, it would have been far beyond the reasonable scope of athletic dept staff to have caught the fake classes.

On the other hand, the Dept of Education absolutely should have a say in the matter. The accrediting body should have a say in the matter. Even the FBI, if you like, should have a say in the matter.


Again, what happened was wrong. And again, UNC perhaps should be punished for it. But not by the NCAA.

Don't see why that is so hard for you to accept. Don't see why you want, so badly, for the NCAA to be the one wielding the hammer. Why not the Dept of Education? Why not the accrediting body? Why aren't those good enough for you? Why does it have to be the NCAA???

Because it was the school that joined the NCAA, not the athletic department. In the eyes of the NCAA the latter is merely an aspect of the former, and not a separate entity. Hence the term "institutional control" is appropriate.

If UNC also committed a crime, fraud, that should be punishable under the law. But the intent to make ineligible players eligible is under the purview of the NCAA.

(08-15-2017 10:49 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  Does that mean you don't have a good answer, or you're purposefully choosing not to elaborate?

Either is fine, I really was just curious.

Well, the legal fiction that is the reasonably prudent person is a topic we could fill pages on.

In the legal world a jury would decide wether or not a person has acted in accordance with the standard but in this instance it would be the NCAA.

It's just asking yourself how a person, acting reasonably and prudently, would act under a certain set of circumstances.

(08-15-2017 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Because it was the school that joined the NCAA, not the athletic department. In the eyes of the NCAA the latter is merely an aspect of the former, and not a separate entity. Hence the term "institutional control" is appropriate.

If UNC also committed a crime, fraud, that should be punishable under the law. But the intent to make ineligible players eligible is under the purview of the NCAA.

This is not an honest argument, in my opinion.

Because, for example, you would never argue that the NCAA should be called upon to judge the school for fraud in the IT dept. That has nothing to do with sports, but everything to do with the school. Therefore, it was understood that the NCAA had to do with sports, and sports alone.

Likewise, if only non-athlete students had taken the fake course, you would never call upon the NCAA to judge the school. Only because student-athletes were steered into the course, by university staff outside the athletic dept, are you calling upon the NCAA.

I reject that. And I reject the notion that athletic dept staff must maintain complete and total control, over the university or over their student-athletes.

That is my opinion. I know you don't agree with it, and we can just let it lie there, with you getting the last word if you like.

(08-15-2017 10:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Well, the legal fiction that is the reasonably prudent person is a topic we could fill pages on.

In the legal world a jury would decide wether or not a person has acted in accordance with the standard but in this instance it would be the NCAA.

It's just asking yourself how a person, acting reasonably and prudently, would act under a certain set of circumstances.

In my layperson's opinion, a jury must view that an athletic dept staffer would have had to perform an unreasonable and unexpected amount of investigation into the operations of individual courses offered at the university and enrolled in by student-athletes to catch the fake courses.

Maybe in light of this case, such duties will now be commonplace tasks assigned to the athletic dept. Perhaps they'll need to hire someone to dig into courses and make sure they're legit, interviewing university faculty, deans, teaching assistants, etc. But that wasn't true before this happened.

(08-15-2017 11:05 AM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(08-15-2017 10:51 AM)JRsec Wrote:  Because it was the school that joined the NCAA, not the athletic department. In the eyes of the NCAA the latter is merely an aspect of the former, and not a separate entity. Hence the term "institutional control" is appropriate.

If UNC also committed a crime, fraud, that should be punishable under the law. But the intent to make ineligible players eligible is under the purview of the NCAA.

This is not an honest argument, in my opinion.

Because, for example, you would never argue that the NCAA should be called upon to judge the school for fraud in the IT dept. That has nothing to do with sports, but everything to do with the school. Therefore, it was understood that the NCAA had to do with sports, and sports alone.

Likewise, if only non-athlete students had taken the fake course, you would never call upon the NCAA to judge the school. Only because student-athletes were steered into the course, by university staff outside the athletic dept, are you calling upon the NCAA.

I reject that. And I reject the notion that athletic dept staff must maintain complete and total control, over the university or over their student-athletes.

That is my opinion. I know you don't agree with it, and we can just let it lie there, with you getting the last word if you like.

(08-15-2017 10:55 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Well, the legal fiction that is the reasonably prudent person is a topic we could fill pages on.

In the legal world a jury would decide wether or not a person has acted in accordance with the standard but in this instance it would be the NCAA.

It's just asking yourself how a person, acting reasonably and prudently, would act under a certain set of circumstances.

In my layperson's opinion, a jury must view that an athletic dept staffer would have had to perform an unreasonable and unexpected amount of investigation into the operations of individual courses offered at the university and enrolled in by student-athletes to catch the fake courses.

Maybe in light of this case, such duties will now be commonplace tasks assigned to the athletic dept. Perhaps they'll need to hire someone to dig into courses and make sure they're legit, interviewing university faculty, deans, teaching assistants, etc. But that wasn't true before this happened.

And that's totally fair.

I am not familiar with every position in an athletic department but I would think that there is somebody who is responsible for staying on them academically to make sure they remain eligible. Maybe I'm wrong.

I cannot conceive of a situation in which a person who had that particular job would not have known.