(10-05-2017 12:05 PM)Artifice Wrote:  Not following your logic at all. You're equating future monitoring with punishment for past misdeeds. Also, the SAACS only has two levers to pull, with accreditation being their version of the death penalty.

I can't speak for SAACS, but MSCHE pounced on a previous weak spot at a two-year school I used to work for. I worked for an administrator who was there for the last pass when they were warned, but cleared one of the fourteen criteria, and as the visits approached, it was known, partially because MSCHE kind of laid it out for us, that this one spot was going to be a big deal for them.

They came, we didn't pass that time, and we had two years to get into compliance. We did. On the next visit, who knows. Probably the spot where they'll go first. And, if the school hits a snag, it's back onto a multi-year correction period.

But, between those visits, there are years to get yourself back onto the right track. I apologize for making it muddy...I guess I just see the "lather, rinse, repeat" of accreditation visits and their punishment methods as glacial. Did UNC clear this with SAACS? No. BUT, they have some time before SAACS has a look at them again, and, what would they face? Another couple years of warning and a few more cycles of them hovering over the school about this?

My greater point is, SAACS pulled them off the ledge on their initial sweep, be it for now or for the foreseeable future, I don't know, but...I suspect UNC will use that in its defense, and the NCAA will have to consider this benchmark in its ruling. To that extent, I think this is where SAACS really let the greater issue down. Yeah, SAACS can either warn or pull...it could have waved its finger harder, if not kept the warnings coming. This is a big deal, but SAACS isn't necessarily making it look like it's as big a deal as maybe it should?