Former UNC Distance Runner Blasts UNC's Response to Cheating Scandal Allegations

Former D9 wrote:

Monkeys typing wrote:

Will UNC get SMU's death penalty? Supposedly the first NCAA punishment (that UNC fought) was a real slap on the wrist. That really pissed off NCAA, who dug further.

Is this a fair interpretation of the facts?

It's a lot deeper than that.

The five LOICs the NCAA charged them with pales in comparison to what one investigative reporter for the local newspaper has dug up and a whistleblower has revealed has been going on.

Basically, their defense is that the NCAA has no authority to tell them that they can not set up fake classes to keep athletes eligible, have tutors write papers for athletes, have the director of their ethics school and the rep for the faculty athletic council write papers for athletes, plus a lot more.

They were put on probation by their academic accrediting agency for the same transgressions.

In short, they admit cheating, but say the NCAA has no jurisdiction over how they run their academics, no matter how apparent it is that they just want a system to keep athletes eligible.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Former D9 wrote:

It's a lot deeper than that.

The five LOICs the NCAA charged them with pales in comparison to what one investigative reporter for the local newspaper has dug up and a whistleblower has revealed has been going on.

Basically, their defense is that the NCAA has no authority to tell them that they can not set up fake classes to keep athletes eligible, have tutors write papers for athletes, have the director of their ethics school and the rep for the faculty athletic council write papers for athletes, plus a lot more.

They were put on probation by their academic accrediting agency for the same transgressions.

In short, they admit cheating, but say the NCAA has no jurisdiction over how they run their academics, no matter how apparent it is that they just want a system to keep athletes eligible.

Here is what the NCAA themselves argued in court: The NCAA wrote that it “did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees.” Added the NCAA: “… it was not secret that the NCAA did not review the substance of college courses.”

So they are arguing they are no the right body to monitor course quality over there and then over here they are arguing that they can punish a member institution over course quality.

For better or worse, I think UNC is going to largely escape this unscathed.

They did get a warning or probationary period from their accreditation body, which is the right body to enforce academic standards.

The Great Escape wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Here is what the NCAA themselves argued in court: The NCAA wrote that it “did not assume a duty to ensure the quality of education student-athletes received at member institutions or to protect student-athletes from the independent, voluntary acts of those institutions or their employees.” Added the NCAA: “… it was not secret that the NCAA did not review the substance of college courses.”

So they are arguing they are no the right body to monitor course quality over there and then over here they are arguing that they can punish a member institution over course quality.

For better or worse, I think UNC is going to largely escape this unscathed.

They did get a warning or probationary period from their accreditation body, which is the right body to enforce academic standards.

You may want to review Jenkins v. NCAA and the implications if the COI rules lightly or not at all in UNC's case.

Mr. Obvious wrote:

The Great Escape wrote:

You may want to review Jenkins v. NCAA and the implications if the COI rules lightly or not at all in UNC's case.

Only somewhat familiar with the case but am failing to see the link that you are proposing.

Except possibly if this is your point: They (NCAA) are arguing in a variety of cases on amateurism that the key to their scheme is that athletics are tied to academic and here their argument would be undermined.

I agree, but my cynicism is that the tie between academics and athletics is a sham anyway, and the NCAA is a hypocritical organization.

I think just as the sanctions on Penn State had to be largely abandoned for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (not what they said but this is what it basically amounts to) that academic fraud sanctions at UNC is likely to die under the same idea.

ShaneO wrote:

Mr. Obvious wrote:

Only somewhat familiar with the case but am failing to see the link that you are proposing.

Except possibly if this is your point: They (NCAA) are arguing in a variety of cases on amateurism that the key to their scheme is that athletics are tied to academic and here their argument would be undermined.

I agree, but my cynicism is that the tie between academics and athletics is a sham anyway, and the NCAA is a hypocritical organization.

I think just as the sanctions on Penn State had to be largely abandoned for lack of subject matter jurisdiction (not what they said but this is what it basically amounts to) that academic fraud sanctions at UNC is likely to die under the same idea.

Your lack of jurisdiction premise would hold water if no other schools had been sanctioned recently for lesser academic related improprieties. However, that is not the case.

I agree. Jenkins really puts the NCAA in a pockle.