UNC tells NCAA they have no jurisdiction in academic fraud case.

[BowlBrother85]

Sounds good. Now go and get your new school accredited. That's not the NCAA's business



Filler class = electives

Every graduate has a transcript full of filler classes electives

Overly cynical and not true. Not every school is guilty of what Deborah Crowder and Jan Boxill were doing... and Crowder was not even an instructor. She had no authority to change grades (but she did). UNC coaches were given a head's up about her pending retirement because this had consequences for the eligibility of athletes. This was systemic fraud and it most certainly should be within the jurisdiction of the NCAA.

 

[LouderVol]

That's for the accreditation board to track, not the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

the NCAA has the rules in place saying you have to be on track. and again, I am pretty sure we have heard from some accrediting boards that what UNC did is not good. So the NCAA is acting on what these third parties are saying. Now if it was the NCAA alone coming and saying these are bogus classes you might have an argument. but thats not the case, heck UNC isn't even debating the BS level of these classes, and has removed them which is an admittance of guilt on its own.

The NCAA is a voluntary organization that set up a system. if you want to be part of that system you have to play by their rules, which as a member you get to influence, especially as a P5. Doesnt matter if its a bullcrap rule, and it looks real bad if you only call their hand on the bullcrap after your hand gets caught in the cookie jar. UNC doesn't care about the bullcrap rule, they care about the punishment and are trying to squirm out of the way.

 

[InVOLuntary]

I never thought the NCAA had jurisdiction over the Penn State/Sandusky case either. I thought that was a criminal case solely. I never understood why the NCAA could get involved when their scope is eligibility. Does the NCAA get involved in all sexual assault cases on campus' across America? This has eligibility implications and is within the scope of the NCAA IMO.

 

[Boca Vol]

I never thought the NCAA had jurisdiction over the Penn State/Sandusky case either. I thought that was a criminal case solely. I never understood why the NCAA could get involved when their scope is eligibility. Does the NCAA get involved in all sexual assault cases on campus' across America? This has eligibility implications and is within the scope of the NCAA IMO.

That's a good point.

 

[Regulator]

I never thought the NCAA had jurisdiction over the Penn State/Sandusky case either. I thought that was a criminal case solely. I never understood why the NCAA could get involved when their scope is eligibility. Does the NCAA get involved in all sexual assault cases on campus' across America? This has eligibility implications and is within the scope of the NCAA IMO.

The general consensus, if I'm not mistaken, was that the NCAA really overstepped their bounds in the Penn St/Sandusky case and many of their decisions were ultimately overturned.

 

[ajvol01]

This final paper got an "A" for a student athlete... :whistling:

That was fantastic

 

[ukvols]

I think it would set a horrendous precedent if allowing non-athletes to participate in the academic fraud is all it takes to move the academic fraud out of the NCAA's reach.

 

[Orange_Crush]

They're not wrong. These were sham classes available to any student. Still not something to be proud of, but the NCAA has no enforcement leg to stand on here, IMO. It's kinda like getting busted for a DUI, blowing a 0.10, and then getting off on a technicality because the machine hadn't been properly calibrated and was inaccurate by 0.02.

UNC is absolutely right. It's more like getting busted for DUI by the building inspector. They can call the police on you, but they can't arrest you, charge you, or sentence you.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I don't think they can get onto UNC for the dummy classes, but they should be able to go after them for playing players that took those classes (ineligible players). You have to take a certain amount of hours and work towards a diploma. If UNC wasn't doing that with those classes seems like the NCAA could use that angle. especially since the coaches knew about it.

It shouldn't be up to the NCAA to say which classes are legit, but I seem to recall some accrediting agency being pissed at UNC for this which gives the NCAA a leg to stand on.

I don't particularly care for UNC, but I don't think you are correct. Technically, they were eligible because they took a class just like half the other students who were not athletes. Do you think the accrediting agency are going to pull those students' degrees retrospectively? Or tell UNC that they have to make changes to the class in the future.

I don't think the NCAA will have a leg to stand on, and it's just one more way that they've weakened themselves through overreach (the Penn St debacle comes to mind).

 

[InVOLuntary]

I don't particularly care for UNC, but I don't think you are correct. Technically, they were eligible because they took a class just like half the other students who were not athletes. Do you think the accrediting agency are going to pull those students' degrees retrospectively? Or tell UNC that they have to make changes to the class in the future.

I don't think the NCAA will have a leg to stand on, and it's just one more way that they've weakened themselves through overreach (the Penn St debacle comes to mind).

I agree to a certain extent but does this not open Pandora's box? Any university could set up a path to some sort of quack degree made up of illegitimate classes to let athletes basically slide as long as it's available to the general student population.

 

[ukvols]

I don't think they should set a precedent that it's not an NCAA violation to, for example, have tutors write papers and take tests for athletes, provided that they do the same for non-athletes. I don't see the argument that UNC's case is beyond the NCAA's reach. I actually am disgusted by the school's stance.

 

[Jxn Vol]

I agree to a certain extent but does this not open Pandora's box? Any university could set up a path to some sort of quack degree made up of illegitimate classes to let athletes basically slide as long as it's available to the general student population.

Peabody College comes to mind.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I agree to a certain extent but does this not open Pandora's box? Any university could set up a path to some sort of quack degree made up of illegitimate classes to let athletes basically slide as long as it's available to the general student population.

The NCAA requires all of its member institutions to be accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation agency. And the college/university has to be a member of the NCAA for its teams to compete in, say, the FBS, or March Madness, or even to be a member of any of the conferences whose roles are so important in college sports. So, no accreditation, no NCAA membership; no NCAA membership, no games or matches.

So there is a failsafe against me and you just starting up our own "college" with sham courses, joining the NCAA, and winning championships while our students all take golf and basket weaving classes. No recognized accreditation agency would sign off on us.

In that light, I do understand what UNC is saying to the NCAA. Basically, it seems to be this: hey, what we're doing for our athletes, we do for all our students. So the only thing that could possibly be wrong about what we're doing is that the class is a sham. But if the class is a sham, that's a matter for our regional accrediting agency to identify and hold us accountable for. Not the NCAA.

Seen from the opposite angle, the "path" to UNC being punished on the playing field for sham classes that all students can attend is this:

==> Accrediting Agency finds some classes to be a sham;
==> Accrediting Agency withholds accreditation from UNC;
==> NCAA (and ACC), noting that UNC is no longer accredited, take away UNC's membership in their institutions;
==> No more FCS (or FBS, or any NCAA tier) games, no more NCAA tournaments, no more CFP invites.

That's how this is supposed to play out. And I think (not sure, but think) that's all UNC's lawyers are saying to the NCAA here.

They seem to be right.

 

[VFLBerg]

So basically UNC gets one year of double secret probation (which has now expired) and suffers no actual penalty for academic fraud. Sweet system.

 

[InVOLuntary]

The NCAA requires all of its member institutions to be accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation agency. And the college/university has to be a member of the NCAA for its teams to compete in, say, the FBS, or March Madness, or even to be a member of any of the conferences whose roles are so important in college sports. So, no accreditation, no NCAA membership; no NCAA membership, no games or matches.

So there is a failsafe against me and you just starting up our own "college" with sham courses, joining the NCAA, and winning championships while our students all take golf and basket weaving classes. No recognized accreditation agency would sign off on us.

In that light, I do understand what UNC is saying to the NCAA. Basically, it seems to be this: hey, what we're doing for our athletes, we do for all our students. So the only thing that could possibly be wrong about what we're doing is that the class is a sham. But if the class is a sham, that's a matter for our regional accrediting agency to identify and hold us accountable for. Not the NCAA.

Seen from the opposite angle, the "path" to UNC being punished on the playing field for sham classes that all students can attend is this:

==> Accrediting Agency finds some classes to be a sham;
==> Accrediting Agency withholds accreditation from UNC;
==> NCAA (and ACC), noting that UNC is no longer accredited, take away UNC's membership in their institutions;
==> No more FCS (or FBS, or any NCAA tier) games, no more NCAA tournaments, no more CFP invites.

That's how this is supposed to play out. And I think (not sure, but think) that's all UNC's lawyers are saying to the NCAA here.

They seem to be right.

I agree but what if a college raises tuition say $10,000/year then rebates $10,000 to all students including scholarship athletes? Hey we're doing it for all students not just athletes.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I agree but what if a college raises tuition say $10,000/year then rebates $10,000 to all students including scholarship athletes? Hey we're doing it for all students not just athletes.

Well, that doesn't really have anything to do with academic peer review and accreditation. It's pretty overtly just a scheme to pay cash to athletes (assuming you meant that their scholarships paid the $10,000 increase for them, but the students personally got the refund anyway).

Disallowed benefits to athletes is certainly within the eligibility rules, and so purview, of the NCAA.

I may have missed it; is that another thing UNC is telling the NCAA they don't have jurisdiction over?

 

[volnpowell]

To me, it is an accreditation issue and an NCAA issue. The accreditation part deals with University as a whole and NCAA deals with athletes eligibility to play/ lack of institutional control rule.

 

[ukvols]

The NCAA requires all of its member institutions to be accredited by the appropriate regional accreditation agency. And the college/university has to be a member of the NCAA for its teams to compete in, say, the FBS, or March Madness, or even to be a member of any of the conferences whose roles are so important in college sports. So, no accreditation, no NCAA membership; no NCAA membership, no games or matches.

So there is a failsafe against me and you just starting up our own "college" with sham courses, joining the NCAA, and winning championships while our students all take golf and basket weaving classes. No recognized accreditation agency would sign off on us.

In that light, I do understand what UNC is saying to the NCAA. Basically, it seems to be this: hey, what we're doing for our athletes, we do for all our students. So the only thing that could possibly be wrong about what we're doing is that the class is a sham. But if the class is a sham, that's a matter for our regional accrediting agency to identify and hold us accountable for. Not the NCAA.

Seen from the opposite angle, the "path" to UNC being punished on the playing field for sham classes that all students can attend is this:

==> Accrediting Agency finds some classes to be a sham;
==> Accrediting Agency withholds accreditation from UNC;
==> NCAA (and ACC), noting that UNC is no longer accredited, take away UNC's membership in their institutions;
==> No more FCS (or FBS, or any NCAA tier) games, no more NCAA tournaments, no more CFP invites.

That's how this is supposed to play out. And I think (not sure, but think) that's all UNC's lawyers are saying to the NCAA here.

They seem to be right.

I don't like this theory, because the standard for the Accrediting Agency to remove the accreditation for all of UNC is probably much higher than the NCAA's standard for finding a major violation because of academic fraud.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

I don't like this theory, because the standard for the Accrediting Agency to remove the accreditation for all of UNC is probably much higher than the NCAA's standard for finding a major violation because of academic fraud.

Yes, and that's probably exactly why UNC does like the argument, and is using it.

On the other hand, they're putting into play something a lot more serious than just a bowl ban or loss of some athletic scholarships. Lose accreditation and the entire university folds.

It's like the difference between a 10% chance you lose $100, and a 1% chance you lose your job permanently.

 

[OldandStillaVol]

On the other hand, they're putting into play something a lot more serious than just a bowl ban or loss of some athletic scholarships. Lose accreditation and the entire university folds.

It's like the difference between a 10% chance you lose $100, and a 1% chance you lose your job permanently.

There is zero chance that a school of UNC' stature loses accreditation. Like you indicate, the entire school would have to fold, which includes the medical school, Winship Cancer Reseach Institute, and a number of other health Institutes.

Although I tend to agree that this falls outside of NCAA jurisdiction, it may be that if they win this argument with the NCAA, the ACC takes some action.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

There is zero chance that a school of UNC' stature loses accreditation. Like you indicate, the entire school would have to fold, which includes the medical school, Winship Cancer Reseach Institute, and a number of other health Institutes.

Although I tend to agree that this falls outside of NCAA jurisdiction, it may be that if they win this argument with the NCAA, the ACC takes some action.

I think you (and I) see there being "zero chance" because there would be warning shots across the bow, from which UNC would quickly retreat.

The accreditation agency almost certainly would not pull the plug without first giving a negative evaluation with some period of time allowed for corrective action. In other words, a non-punitive warning.

Any university leadership that aren't complete fools will fall over themselves in their rush to make those corrections. And so nothing is really lost other than some face as the university is publicly embarrassed by the slap on the wrist.

Nevertheless, the result is the same: UNC stops offering the sham course...and is in no position to make the same mistake a second time, at least not for many years, without risking a stronger response.


p.s. Having written this, I discover how little I truly care about UNC's academic and athletic well being or this whole conversation, heh. I hereby bow out.

 

[VFLBerg]

You are correct that there is zero chance that UNC loses accreditation. They have already served their double secret probation period: " the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, sanctioned the school with a year of probation that expired in June."

If the NCAA cannot do anything more to punish a decade of academic fraud then they should simply disband. They are useless.

 

[ALLVOL24/7/365]

Well, if UNC gets by with this BS crap that setting up fake classes for athletes to take to boost their GPA's is acceptable and the NCAA has no governance on how the players meet their minimum GPA's then why even have the GPA requirement's. If UNC gets by with this it will legitamize what the Barn has done for years and every school has to some extent. Remember the class at UGA a few years back lead by a BB coach that asked test questions such as how many points is a 3 point shoot worth in a game. Every school will just "customize" the curriculum for athletes. UNC needs to really be busted for not even acknowledging they did anything wrong. At least Old Pi$$ admitted a little wrong doing already and gave some half hearted self punishment.

 

[volnpowell]

I still do not know why it has to be one or the other that can punish? Can not accreditation do or say whatever to UNC from an academic standpoint and NCAA use rule of lack of institutional control to punish athletics? NCAA does have rules right?! UNC is a member of the NCAA right? Seems like they could even go as far as saying fine, then you are no longer a member of the NCAA since do not want us interfering and all (I know they will not do that though, too much money to lose) I mean the NCAA has punished schools before for that right?!!!

 

[ukvols]

Yes, and that's probably exactly why UNC does like the argument, and is using it.

On the other hand, they're putting into play something a lot more serious than just a bowl ban or loss of some athletic scholarships. Lose accreditation and the entire university folds.

It's like the difference between a 10% chance you lose $100, and a 1% chance you lose your job permanently.

I don't think the NCAA has anything to do with the degree to which the Accrediting Agency scrutinizes UNC. I don't think UNC's argument to the NCAA puts anything new in play with a separate agency.