Another academic scandal; UNC is f-cked

UNC get f-cked yet?

It's not going to.

There is no "Memphis precedent." Had Memphis beaten Kansas, Memphis would still be recognized as the 2008 NCAA champion.

 

May not be binding precedent in the legal sense, but it sure as hell ain't something the watching world gonna forget.

How can the NCAA explain why 08 Memphis deserved vacating, but not 05 UNC, without appearing preposterously hypocritical and corrupt to the world? "Well, Memphis lost the title game and UNC didn't.." sure ain't gonna cut it.

For an organization already deluged with credibility issues that could be pretty close to final straw material.

 

That will be a great column. Who will write it first?

 

Activate the Doyel Signal!

 

The "watching world" remembers seeing what happened on the court. The NCAA's action or inaction will not affect anything.

 

Washington Post had a nice stroke and lick story on ACC Basketball, noting that they have 4 active hall of fame coaches. They fail to dwell or mention that Syracuse and UNC are hotbeds of academic fraud investigations and Pitino is a one man probable cause. Krzyzewski, who is suck a defensive genius, that he's giving Obama advise on military deployment, may run the cleanest top program in the country, is also such an insufferable ego maniac that he needs his own HOF.

The UNC story should be the biggest story and it's barely covered

 

As I pointed out previously in the thread, the 93 title is not tainted by this scandal because the scheme was not yet in effect in time to benefit the players on the '93 team. The scheme started in Fall of '93. Eligibility for players on the '93 title team would've been determined prior to the start of the Fall '92 semester and Spring '93 semester.

The '09 title is also unlikely to be in jeopardy. After the '05 title, Roy asked Joe Holliday to make sure players were not being steered to AFAM. None of the players on the '09 title team were AFAM majors, and by 09 basketball advising was keeping the players clear of the department. Even if a key player on that team who was a junior or senior took a bogus course as a freshman or sophomore, it wouldn't make them automatically ineligible. You'd have to look at the transcript and see if that course(s) was the difference maker on the players' GPA during the 08-09 season. That's much less likely than what happened with the '05 team.

I say all that as an alumnus who thinks the '05 title is now clearly tainted and should come down from the rafters of the Dean Dome.

 

Interesting, nuanced take. A lot to think about.

Oh.

Never mind.

 

Curious that you left off the rest of my sentence. Being an alumnus - and someone who has been openly and publicly critical of my alma mater over this mess for years - doesn't change the fact that those claiming the 93 title is tainted have no idea what they're talking about.

There's this thing called the Wainstein report, which is kinda long but can be read in about an hour, and it's highly informative about who knew what, when and how this whole thing unfolded. Sadly, most commenting on this scandal don't seem interested in actually reading it.

 

Regarding precedent: The NCAA vacated an outdoor track championship for FSU stemming from the online music history course in which students (some of whom were athletes) were provided answers by an instructor. Just one track athlete was enrolled in the course, and he didn't even score in the championship meet. (Bowden and Hamilton lost wins too). UNC's infractions dwarf that scandal....

 

Fair enough regarding 93. I know the scheme started in 93, but I'll admit I was not aware of the extent to which it implicated the 93 roster when I posted that.

However, I'm not sure I can buy your reasoning regarding 09, at least if the NCAA treats this consistently with how it handled prior academic fraud cases--where it vacated all wins that any compromised player participated in (which is why the 08 Memphis and 97 Minnesota final four runs got wiped from the books). In the past, the NCAA has essentially applied something akin to a strict liability standard on this, with the issue of degree or numbers being irrelevant. For example, with Memphis the issue regarded whether only one player should've been inelgible--that didn't matter to the NCAA, their entire season got wiped away.

So, based on that standard, the "vacating" question doesn't really hinge on whether it was as bad in 09 as 05, or whether players were still "majoring" in AFAM en masse, instead it's basically just "was the shit still going on?" If any players took the phony classes during the 08-09 season, then any wins they participated in are equally compromised as the 05 wins. Is it your contention that nobody on the 09 team was enrolled in any of these sham classes?

Of course, all of the preceding presumes the NCAA will act consistently with prior academic fraud cases. And presuming consistent treatment from the NCAA has always been a foolish assumption indeed.

 

Which one of these NCAA Sports is not like the others?:
a) Football
b) Basketball
c) Track