Author Topic: clt provides more UNC CHeat scandal.  (Read 344825 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1875 on: May 31, 2017, 08:27:03 am
File under crushing irony:



clt can sense the smugness thru the screen of clt's gateway 2000 monitor.


NinerNirvana

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 563


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1877 on: June 02, 2017, 10:44:17 am
http://www.tarheelblog.com/2017/6/1/15710574/north-carolina-academic-scandal-notice-of-allegations-response


Has the tone of the media really changed recently?

clt isn't going to click on that, but will bet that they are whining.


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1879 on: June 17, 2017, 10:23:40 am
From former UNC QB:



ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1880 on: June 17, 2017, 08:20:08 pm
clt daps this individual.


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1881 on: June 17, 2017, 08:29:58 pm
clt says mike p is doing his best to reaarrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html

 


4ever niner

  • Assistant Coach
  • ***
  • Posts: 4599
Reply #1882 on: June 17, 2017, 09:14:31 pm
clt says mike p is doing his best to reaarrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html
This is why there are so many lawyer jokes. Bilas is too smart of a guy to be expressing this weaselly opinion. He's an ACC fluffer and thus is not in position to be objective.


9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2883
Reply #1883 on: June 18, 2017, 11:31:12 am
clt says mike p is doing his best to reaarrange the deck chairs on the titanic.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/sports/college/article156649234.html
This is why there are so many lawyer jokes. Bilas is too smart of a guy to be expressing this weaselly opinion. He's an ACC fluffer and thus is not in position to be objective.
It's a pathetic argument. The fact that some non-athletes took the classes makes anything OK apparently. Despite the mountain of evidence that the majority of courses ran entirely to help athletes who needed to stay eligible (nicely recorded in emails), that the athletic department was directly involved in putting athletes into those courses when needed to stay eligible (also documented in email), that Crowder gave assistance to athletes getting into courses and even setting up courses that she wasn't doing for other students (documented in emails), and on and on. Bilas should have more integrity than that, but his opinion on this is probably tied to his perception of whether he'll keep his job so he's willing to undermine it I guess.

Some commenters on these articles have astutely pointed out that all Louisville had to do was provide prostitutes to some non-athletes and it wouldn't be "extra benefits", using UNC-Cheat's and Bilas' argument.

Frankly though, extra benefits should not even be necessary. If this isn't the LOIC, then I don't know what is. The entire institution was complicit in this fraud perpetrated over many years, including both the academic and athletic sides. The NCAA's rules clearly allow them to punish UNC-Cheat harshly on that basis alone. So a judge is going to ignore that rule in order to make a tenuous argument about the extra-benefits one? I suppose there are a lot of bad judges out there, so maybe they'll be able to shop around to get one that is either crackpot or a UNC-Cheat super fan.


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1884 on: June 25, 2017, 09:26:33 pm
Quote
A recent article in the Observer headlined the opinion of ESPN basketball commentator Jay Bilas that NCAA officials were “breaking their own rules to punish UNC” in the long running athletics scandal. While I admire Bilas both for his professional skills and his unflagging advocacy for college athletes’ rights, I have to take exception to one perspective expressed by him in the story.

According to Bilas, UNC, which is charged in part with “impermissible benefits” relating to the academic classes at issue in the scandal, can’t be “accused of committing academic fraud because the NCAA’s definition of academic fraud doesn’t apply to the UNC case.” The article states, “Academic fraud, to the NCAA is a player cheating the school.” In regard to the academic fraud aspect of the UNC case, Bilas - and the NCAA - are simply incorrect.

NCAA Bylaw 10.1 “Unethical Conduct” sets out in part the factual circumstances for finding a violation pertaining to an “enrolled student-athlete.” The conduct can be by a student-athlete or an institutional staff member, which includes “any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department.” “Unethical conduct” consists of knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit … for an enrolled student-athlete.”

This bylaw and its description of the conduct involved as “academic fraud” was utilized in the first installment of NCAA violations involving UNC. In the fall of 2010 two UNC football players were declared ineligible to play because of alleged violations of Bylaw 10.1 because they supposedly received too much help on class papers from a UNC-employed tutor. In the “Findings of Violations of NCAA Legislation” set forth in the March 12, 2012 public infractions report handed down by the NCAA and accepted by UNC, the report states: “… student- athletes 1, 2 and 3 … violated provisions of ethical conduct of legislation when they engaged in academic fraud.”


It’s obvious then that the NCAA believes that student-athletes getting too much help on classwork from a university-paid tutor is “academic fraud” and merits punishment of the university (as well as the athletes). In the current UNC case under consideration by the NCAA, there is copious documentation by a variety of studies and reports that a substantial number of classes with enrolled UNC athletes failed to meet accepted standards of higher education accreditation. Designated lecture classes never met. No professor was involved in the course. Grading was done by a staffer. And in some cases grade rolls were forged with the name of an actual professor.

Under that set of facts, there is simply no way that the NCAA could consider UNC’s conduct somehow distinguishable from the improper assistance given by an undergraduate tutor to an athlete on a single paper. So, the NCAA’s efforts to take an academic fraud case under Bylaw 10.1 and convert it into an “impermissible benefit” violation under a different bylaw defies logic.

Likewise, UNC’s efforts to deflect responsibility under the NCAA’s 10.1 Bylaw has no grounding in logic or reality. As noted early in an internal UNC report, there were a certain number of “aberrant” courses found. The one at the center of the initial scandal – Swahili 403 – was listed as a lecture course which met regularly, was taught by a professor in the fall, with a 25-page paper in Swahili required. Inexplicably there was also a “shadow” summer class in Swahili 403 that never met, had no professor, and only a 20-page paper in English was required. A tutor and athletic counselers were the only ones involved in the instruction. And to top it off, the official grade roll for the course had a forged signature of the legitimate professor on it.

To claim that course – and who knows how many similar ones – as not “academic fraud” strains the credibility of both the NCAA and UNC. I suggest they quit dancing around technical arguments and start focusing on seeing that college athletes get a legitimate education.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html
« Last Edit: June 25, 2017, 09:28:23 pm by NinerAdvocate »


TRLeader

  • Senior
  • **
  • Posts: 1771
  • #1 TWill fan
Reply #1885 on: June 25, 2017, 10:58:01 pm
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.
CLEAN SLATE for 49er Basketball

:49ers:


Run49er

  • Moderator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Posts: 12340
Reply #1886 on: June 25, 2017, 11:26:01 pm
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.
I found link on Observer site in the 
Opinion section.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1887 on: June 26, 2017, 07:40:21 am
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.

clt says the bilas story is more important.


Run49er

  • Moderator
  • Chancellor
  • *****
  • Posts: 12340
Reply #1888 on: June 26, 2017, 08:24:18 am
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.
I found link on Observer site in the 
Opinion section.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/
FWIW, also appeared in the Sunday, June 25th printed edition of the Big O on page 29A.


49r9r

  • Head Coach
  • ****
  • Posts: 5625
Reply #1889 on: June 27, 2017, 09:00:20 am
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.

clt says the bilas story is more important.

Any story defending or promoting the tarholes goes on front page.  Any story saying they should be punished is classified as "opinion" by the O.

Charlotte 49er Campus Beer Drinking Contest Runner Up 1974, 1975, 1976


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1890 on: June 27, 2017, 09:16:24 am
Great article from a retired NC Judge completely disagreeing with Bilas.


http://amp.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article157927689.html


Impossible to find any links to it by simply visiting Observer site....I found someone linking it thru Twitter.
I found link on Observer site in the 
Opinion section.

http://www.charlotteobserver.com/opinion/
FWIW, also appeared in the Sunday, June 25th printed edition of the Big O on page 29A.

Also appeared in this thread, in full, an hour and a half before it was reposted several times.


49r9r

  • Head Coach
  • ****
  • Posts: 5625
Reply #1891 on: June 27, 2017, 09:33:38 am
I wonder how many readers read the Opinions Section as opposed to how many readers read the Sports Section and the Front Page. 
Charlotte 49er Campus Beer Drinking Contest Runner Up 1974, 1975, 1976


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1892 on: July 25, 2017, 04:23:05 pm
Some developments that got discussed in the shoutbox. Apologies for my laziness, Im just copypasting for those that missed it:


Quote
Andrew Carter @_andrewcarter
1h
UNC's appearance before NCAA Committee on Infractions has been set for Aug. 16 in Nashville, Tenn. Scheduled for two days.

Important read (this is pretty damning):

https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/07/NCAA-Enforcement-Reply-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-07-17-2017.pdf

(Link repaired)

Quote
"Dear Chancellor Folt:
A panel of the NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions (COI) has scheduled an appearance by the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill to begin at 8:30 a.m. Central time on Wednesday, August 16, 2017. This hearing will take place in Cheekwood ABC meeting rooms at the Gaylord Opryland Resort and Convention Center, 2800 Opryland Drive, Nashville, Tennessee 37214. The panel has set aside two full days for this hearing. NCAA infractions hearings are closed to the public, and the information discussed during these hearings is considered confidential, as is the date, time and location of the hearing"”


Quote
{UNC AD} Cunningham violated NCAA legislation when he shared case-related information with the media.
However, the enforcement staff chose not to amend the second amended notice of allegations and cite
the violation because it would restart the processing clock
and, as detailed in Section II, this case has
already taken a significant amount of time
. The enforcement staff notes Cunningham's violation of
Bylaw 19.01.3 for the hearing panel's consideration.
« Last Edit: July 26, 2017, 12:12:50 pm by NinerAdvocate »


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1893 on: July 25, 2017, 08:57:46 pm
Roy Williams has to attend the COI meeting.

I thought we heard he had been 100% cleared of wrongdoing??



NinerAdvocate

  • Guest
Reply #1894 on: July 25, 2017, 09:29:11 pm

Here is the C.O.I. that will president over the hearing.

Dr. Carol Cartwright, president emerita, Kent State and Bowling Green State Universities;

Mr. Alberto Gonzales, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of Law, Belmont University College of Law;

Ms. Eleanor Myers, associate professor of law emerita and interim associate dean for students at Temple University;

Mr. Joseph Novak, retired football coach, Northern Illinois University;

Mr. Larry Parkinson, director, Office of Enforcement for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, public member, Washington, D.C.;

Ms. Jill Pilgrim, attorney and co-founder of Precise Advisory Group, public member, New York, New York;

Mr. Greg Sankey, commissioner, Southeastern Conference, and chief hearing officer

Sankey is the one that is sick of their crap.


ghostofclt

  • Sophomore
  • *
  • Posts: 634
Reply #1895 on: July 25, 2017, 10:57:05 pm
clt says good ol Roy is upset. He don't even know how to get to Nashville.


NinerAdvocate

  • Guest


NewNiner

  • Senior
  • **
  • Posts: 1603
Reply #1897 on: July 26, 2017, 10:40:26 am
clt daps this individual.


It's because he was ultimately a William & Mary guy.
Hail Charlotte 49ers and Hark Upon the Gale!


9erken

  • Senior Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 2883
Reply #1898 on: July 26, 2017, 04:38:12 pm
Read an interesting point from another forum about whether UNC-Cheat would win a court case if the NCAA comes down hard. They basically said that UNC-Cheat absolutely does not want this to go to trial because they might discover more dirt. This struck me as particularly interesting. Basically a trial over NCAA jurisdiction over extra benefits would have to involve discovery and witness testimony under oath about whether players got preferential entry into classes and grades in those classes. So they could put both Crowder and Nyang'oro on the stand under oath and ask them whether they gave preferential access and ever offered sections of no-show classes only for athletes, as well as ask them about communications they had with athletic department staff. I suspect the NCAA just wants this over with so they might not do that in a trial, but everyone forgets that even Wannstein was severely limited in his scope of inquiry, and he still found a ton of stuff. In addition, this really is an existential battle for the NCAA. If they can't punish an institution for the worst academic / athletic scandal in history, what purpose do they serve?

So all the bluster about the cheats taking a harsh decision to court could be just that, bluster and nothing else. Or stupidity, it could be that too.


ImfromClayton

  • MemberPF
  • Junior
  • *
  • Posts: 1051
Reply #1899 on: July 26, 2017, 04:59:59 pm
One of either the NCAA or UNC is going down and I can't wait to watch.  :D
#bus1


 

* Charlotte 49ers News

* State of Charlotte

* Videos