(08-16-2017 08:06 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  Perhaps the way you are talking about it is how things are done at small-time schools like NDSU and Minnesota but at big time programs like Clemson there are people employed by the athletic department who track these things. Clemson even has an entire division within the Athletic Department that has as it's sole concern the academic performance of the student-athletes.

So does Minnesota, so does NDSU, so does every DI school. It's part of the rules. You have to ensure that every student athlete is making X% of progress towards a degree, every year they remain in the program.

That, has absolutely nothing to do with what I was talking about. And, we'll have to take it to PM or another thread if you want to discuss further.

(08-16-2017 08:35 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Do they have many, or any friends?

As has either been explicitly said, or implied in this thread --- every single major school has done this, to some level. "Looked the other way" to some level.

If the NCAA decides it can come down on UNC for this .... then there's literally nothing stopping them from coming down on every single major program in the country.


So .... they should have friends. But, like many other cases, school champion shackles on their competitors, so maybe you're right.

UNC Infractions hearing ends. No statement coming from either the NCAA or UNC. Ruling not likely to be announced for several months.

So is some form of compromise allowable, for this board? Or does it have to be full on extremism, in order for it to be a "win" for one of the sides?

I like compromise, myself.

Compromise? That's approaching the problem incorrectly, IMO.

Just? Fair? Better questions. I sincerely doubt we will see either. However, at a minimum, as a barometer, I would expect to see the following basic penalties:

1) Vacation of all wins in the affected sports during the specified period. This includes removal of championship banners for those sports.

2) Five year postseason ban for all affected sports.

3) 25% or more scholarship reductions in affected sports, stepping down over time, for 5-7 years.

4) Reductions in recruiting allowances (eg visits, etc)

5) Hefty Fines (this is a difficult # to arrive at because so much of their financial success is fruit of the poisonous tree)

6) Future enhanced compliance monitoring by NCAA (eg regular audits) during the probationary period.

Right .... extremism is the free currency of internet discussion. Why would I have dared to hope otherwise?

There's nothing extreme about my expectations. They are much milder than an actual death penalty, which is what the program deserves.

(08-17-2017 03:12 PM)Artifice Wrote:  1) Vacation of all wins in the affected sports during the specified period. This includes removal of championship banners for those sports.

Vacating wins or records is silly. There is no point in pretending that USC didn't win a football title, or that Louisville didn't win a basketball title, or that Lance Armstrong didn't win the Tour de France 7 times, or whatever. It happened. Just say, "They won, but they cheated."

(08-17-2017 03:15 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Right .... extremism is the free currency of internet discussion. Why would I have dared to hope otherwise?

Then what would you suggest?

(08-17-2017 10:52 PM)Wedge Wrote:  

(08-17-2017 03:12 PM)Artifice Wrote:  1) Vacation of all wins in the affected sports during the specified period. This includes removal of championship banners for those sports.

Vacating wins or records is silly.

I am certain that the howls of dismay from Carborro speak to effectiveness of the punishment. And if that doesn't convince you, this university spent the better part of $20 Million to keep those banners up. They very obviously care about it. I also submit that it's a strong future deterrent; however, I'm quite okay with it just being a fitting punishment for this case.

One addendum to those penalties that I should make:

7) all current SA's in the affected sports should be allowed to freely transfer to other D1 programs without the customary redshirt year.

(08-16-2017 08:06 PM)Eldonabe Wrote:  

(08-16-2017 06:09 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If the NCAA gave UNC the death penalty, then I'd look for UNC to leave the NCAA.

and so would all the others big schools. There is waaaay too much money to be made (and lost).

You really think the other schools would follow UNC out of the NCAA because of academic fraud. I think they wouldn't wanted to be seen supporting fraudulent classes that UNC pulled off, it would be a very bad public image.

I think what the UNC investigation only affirms - along with Penn State, Miami, Louisville, USC, etc., etc., - is that the NCAA simply does not have the teeth to properly enforce or govern Division 1 athletics with the current landscape today. A lot of the policing needs to be done within the schools and their athletic programs.

I think what (should) happens is that the conferences, under the lead of the commissioner, begin stronger governance and oversight of themselves. In essence, if the ACC (or any conference) wants to push athletes into sham courses to maintain eligibility, they can do that as long as the conference agrees to it. Rightfully so, you may get schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc. refuse to go along with it, but perhaps we will see a realignment phase where schools begin the creation of conferences based on athletic program mission, as well as standards and expectations.

Or, perhaps you get those schools become the voice of reason and pull back these programs from going overboard and rightfully align the mission and vision of athletic programs. Unfortunately, money is the driving force of almost all these decisions - and money does interesting things, to say the least, to people in charge.

Idk. I just think there is no way for the NCAA to properly administer everything in today's day and age. There are too many dark corners to consistently monitor to ensure every one plays fair.

(08-18-2017 09:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think what the UNC investigation only affirms - along with Penn State, Miami, Louisville, USC, etc., etc., - is that the NCAA simply does not have the teeth to properly enforce or govern Division 1 athletics with the current landscape today. A lot of the policing needs to be done within the schools and their athletic programs.

I think what (should) happens is that the conferences, under the lead of the commissioner, begin stronger governance and oversight of themselves. In essence, if the ACC (or any conference) wants to push athletes into sham courses to maintain eligibility, they can do that as long as the conference agrees to it. Rightfully so, you may get schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc. refuse to go along with it, but perhaps we will see a realignment phase where schools begin the creation of conferences based on athletic program mission, as well as standards and expectations.

Or, perhaps you get those schools become the voice of reason and pull back these programs from going overboard and rightfully align the mission and vision of athletic programs. Unfortunately, money is the driving force of almost all these decisions - and money does interesting things, to say the least, to people in charge.

Idk. I just think there is no way for the NCAA to properly administer everything in today's day and age. There are too many dark corners to consistently monitor to ensure every one plays fair.

Two things:

If the conferences return to self governance it will be an even worse day for college athletics. Conferences will blow apart when schools like North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Stanford etc. are found guilty of something. I promise you if somebody turned in one of those schools the "ratting out" fest would be just getting started.

They are all like made men right now. Each of them knows who has the goods on them and they know who they have the goods on.

Secondly, the need to feel clean is what has been behind the stipend push. They all would benefit from capping the payouts. But the stipends won't work because there will always be those who pay more.

It's really a fairly hopeless situation.

(08-18-2017 09:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 09:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think what the UNC investigation only affirms - along with Penn State, Miami, Louisville, USC, etc., etc., - is that the NCAA simply does not have the teeth to properly enforce or govern Division 1 athletics with the current landscape today. A lot of the policing needs to be done within the schools and their athletic programs.

I think what (should) happens is that the conferences, under the lead of the commissioner, begin stronger governance and oversight of themselves. In essence, if the ACC (or any conference) wants to push athletes into sham courses to maintain eligibility, they can do that as long as the conference agrees to it. Rightfully so, you may get schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc. refuse to go along with it, but perhaps we will see a realignment phase where schools begin the creation of conferences based on athletic program mission, as well as standards and expectations.

Or, perhaps you get those schools become the voice of reason and pull back these programs from going overboard and rightfully align the mission and vision of athletic programs. Unfortunately, money is the driving force of almost all these decisions - and money does interesting things, to say the least, to people in charge.

Idk. I just think there is no way for the NCAA to properly administer everything in today's day and age. There are too many dark corners to consistently monitor to ensure every one plays fair.

Two things:

If the conferences return to self governance it will be an even worse day for college athletics. Conferences will blow apart when schools like North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Stanford etc. are found guilty of something. I promise you if somebody turned in one of those schools the "ratting out" fest would be just getting started.

They are all like made men right now. Each of them knows who has the goods on them and they know who they have the goods on.

Secondly, the need to feel clean is what has been behind the stipend push. They all would benefit from capping the payouts. But the stipends won't work because there will always be those who pay more.

It's really a fairly hopeless situation.

I get what you are saying, and there are advantages and disadvantages to every situation. I do find the "ratting-out" aspect intriguing because - in a situation where programs being grouped together athletically (tossing out location/academics/institution/etc.), they would be bound together by the same relaxed oversight in pursuit of higher athletic competition. Essentially, if all the programs are doing it, no school would feel compelled to "rat out" anyone.

From such a separation, you could have a national division composed of the following programs:

Alabama
Auburn
Clemson
LSU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Miami
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Penn State
Texas
Texas A&M
USC

You could also toss in programs like UNC, Ole Miss and Louisville who have - based on investigations - also have relaxed their academic standards in order to achieve better athletic success.

Notice that you don't have programs like Notre Dame, Duke, Stanford, UCLA, California, etc., because I feel like those schools would not want to harm their academic image by making concessions to one side or the other. These institutions aim to be elite in both.

I don't think this has any shot whatsoever of happening, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical nevertheless.

(08-18-2017 11:07 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 09:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 09:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think what the UNC investigation only affirms - along with Penn State, Miami, Louisville, USC, etc., etc., - is that the NCAA simply does not have the teeth to properly enforce or govern Division 1 athletics with the current landscape today. A lot of the policing needs to be done within the schools and their athletic programs.

I think what (should) happens is that the conferences, under the lead of the commissioner, begin stronger governance and oversight of themselves. In essence, if the ACC (or any conference) wants to push athletes into sham courses to maintain eligibility, they can do that as long as the conference agrees to it. Rightfully so, you may get schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc. refuse to go along with it, but perhaps we will see a realignment phase where schools begin the creation of conferences based on athletic program mission, as well as standards and expectations.

Or, perhaps you get those schools become the voice of reason and pull back these programs from going overboard and rightfully align the mission and vision of athletic programs. Unfortunately, money is the driving force of almost all these decisions - and money does interesting things, to say the least, to people in charge.

Idk. I just think there is no way for the NCAA to properly administer everything in today's day and age. There are too many dark corners to consistently monitor to ensure every one plays fair.

Two things:

If the conferences return to self governance it will be an even worse day for college athletics. Conferences will blow apart when schools like North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Stanford etc. are found guilty of something. I promise you if somebody turned in one of those schools the "ratting out" fest would be just getting started.

They are all like made men right now. Each of them knows who has the goods on them and they know who they have the goods on.

Secondly, the need to feel clean is what has been behind the stipend push. They all would benefit from capping the payouts. But the stipends won't work because there will always be those who pay more.

It's really a fairly hopeless situation.

I get what you are saying, and there are advantages and disadvantages to every situation. I do find the "ratting-out" aspect intriguing because - in a situation where programs being grouped together athletically (tossing out location/academics/institution/etc.), they would be bound together by the same relaxed oversight in pursuit of higher athletic competition. Essentially, if all the programs are doing it, no school would feel compelled to "rat out" anyone.

From such a separation, you could have a national division composed of the following programs:

Alabama
Auburn
Clemson
LSU
Florida
Florida State
Georgia
Miami
Michigan
Nebraska
Ohio State
Oklahoma
Penn State
Texas
Texas A&M
USC

You could also toss in programs like UNC, Ole Miss and Louisville who have - based on investigations - also have relaxed their academic standards in order to achieve better athletic success.

Notice that you don't have programs like Notre Dame, Duke, Stanford, UCLA, California, etc., because I feel like those schools would not want to harm their academic image by making concessions to one side or the other. These institutions aim to be elite in both.

I don't think this has any shot whatsoever of happening, but I thought it was an interesting hypothetical nevertheless.

All of those schools utilize special admission standards for athletes.

You have a narrative but it isn't supported by fact.

(08-18-2017 09:43 AM)JRsec Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 09:34 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  I think what the UNC investigation only affirms - along with Penn State, Miami, Louisville, USC, etc., etc., - is that the NCAA simply does not have the teeth to properly enforce or govern Division 1 athletics with the current landscape today. A lot of the policing needs to be done within the schools and their athletic programs.

I think what (should) happens is that the conferences, under the lead of the commissioner, begin stronger governance and oversight of themselves. In essence, if the ACC (or any conference) wants to push athletes into sham courses to maintain eligibility, they can do that as long as the conference agrees to it. Rightfully so, you may get schools like Vanderbilt, Northwestern, Duke, Stanford, etc. refuse to go along with it, but perhaps we will see a realignment phase where schools begin the creation of conferences based on athletic program mission, as well as standards and expectations.

Or, perhaps you get those schools become the voice of reason and pull back these programs from going overboard and rightfully align the mission and vision of athletic programs. Unfortunately, money is the driving force of almost all these decisions - and money does interesting things, to say the least, to people in charge.

Idk. I just think there is no way for the NCAA to properly administer everything in today's day and age. There are too many dark corners to consistently monitor to ensure every one plays fair.

Two things:

If the conferences return to self governance it will be an even worse day for college athletics. Conferences will blow apart when schools like North Carolina, Alabama, Texas, Ohio State, and Stanford etc. are found guilty of something. I promise you if somebody turned in one of those schools the "ratting out" fest would be just getting started.

Yeah, we discussed this in another thread. The conferences want no part of enforcing the rules themselves. Self-enforcement by the conferences would end up with supporters of various teams ratting on their own conference-mates, as happened in the SWC and SEC, or conferences breaking up because of snitching and disputes over the conference sanctioning its own members, like the PCC in the 1950s.

Also, the conflicts of interest would be even greater than they are with NCAA enforcement. Suppose that the ADs at Michigan and Penn State vote to make Ohio State ineligible for the Big Ten football title, or going the other way, suppose that the Big Ten decides that a 2/3 supermajority vote is required to sanction a member, and all three of those schools plus Wisconsin and Michigan State make a secret agreement that they will all vote against sanctions on any one of their group.

Jesus H..... Rules were made to be broken. Or at the very least to push the envelop as far as possible.

Less (rules) is more in this case. You would create a system of haves and have-nots since there are schools with deeper pockets than others, but they are already doing it now - ALL of them are including Duke and Stanford and all the others some are holding up as pillars of the community.

Reduce the NCAA to what it already is anyways - a highly paid Party Planner (The tournament and the BCS Bowls/Championship tourney). The people who govern the NCAA are all connected to schools which do the same things but are in a position to judge others.... it is as sickening as watching Ted Kennedy look down his glasses in disgust asnd judgement of someone who did a fraction of the bad **** the Kennedy did himself....

(08-18-2017 08:19 AM)vandiver49 Wrote:  Then what would you suggest?

Compromise.

Treating UNC with integrity, as the world class university that it is. Which is unquestionable. NOT treating it like a hoodlum who just stole from a convenience store.

Allow it to propose corrective actions and punishments that it thinks are appropriate for what happened, and go from there.

Can we be honest with ourselves for a second, please?

....... just how many games, championships, whatever did UNC win directly because of this one course??? All the athletes that took it would've just taken some other "easy" class. They would've all maintained exactly the same eligibility. It would've been exactly the same rosters in all the same practices and games. Nothing would be any different.

(08-18-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Can we be honest with ourselves for a second, please?

....... just how many games, championships, whatever did UNC win directly because of this one course??? All the athletes that took it would've just taken some other "easy" class. They would've all maintained exactly the same eligibility. It would've been exactly the same rosters in all the same practices and games. Nothing would be any different.

You are without doubt an absolute moron.

They won two NCAA basketball titles with players who should have been ineligible.

An easy class that gives you a C- versus a non-existent class that gives you an A keeps you eligible.

Did the schools miss your learning disability?


You should be banned from this site due to sheer, abject stupidity.

You are so stupid you probably bought Sea Monkeys twice.

(08-18-2017 01:38 PM)lumberpack4 Wrote:  

(08-18-2017 01:01 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  Can we be honest with ourselves for a second, please?

....... just how many games, championships, whatever did UNC win directly because of this one course??? All the athletes that took it would've just taken some other "easy" class. They would've all maintained exactly the same eligibility. It would've been exactly the same rosters in all the same practices and games. Nothing would be any different.

You are without doubt an absolute moron.

They won two NCAA basketball titles with players who should have been ineligible.

An easy class that gives you a C- versus a non-existent class that gives you an A keeps you eligible.

Did the schools miss your learning disability?


You should be banned from this site due to sheer, abject stupidity.

You are so stupid you probably bought Sea Monkeys twice.

I think he was thinking more along the lines of football.

They had limited success even with the free grades.