(01-31-2019 01:23 PM)Wedge Wrote:  Jason Kirk points out that the NCAA wasn't very convincing in its rationale for the differences between the Missouri and North Carolina situations:

https://www.sbnation.com/2019/1/31/18205...s-bowl-ban

Quote:Wait, so why does Mizzou get hammered for one bad tutor, while UNC got away with years and years of flawed academics? The NCAA explains, confusingly:

"Among other differences, UNC stood by the courses and the grades it awarded student-athletes. In support of that position, UNC asserted that although courses were created and graded by an office secretary, student-athletes completed their own work. Here, by contrast, Missouri acknowledged that the tutor completed student-athletes’ work and, in most instances, this conduct violated its honor code."

So UNC got away with it because UNC was fine with the results, while Mizzou got punished because Mizzou agreed something bad happened. Right?

There is a substantial difference between the two.

UNC had bogus courses, but the students did their own work.

Mizzou had real courses, but the students had the tutor do the work for them.