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

[LouderVol]

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).

With a professional degree I can say if it was found out I took bogus classes yes my degree would be pulled until I took real classes. and if I had my license I would have suspended, and if I knew I took bogus classes that we required I could face a crap ton of liability (if I practiced with a license) and probably would be rejected from getting a license.

I think the NCAAs only chance, after all the mess ups, is to prove UNC knew about the classes and were funneling players to it. I would at that point they could get hammered. like with Grier last year, Florida only had to suspend AFTER they knew. If UNC knew and used it to their advantage they are cheating.

 

[BowlBrother85]

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).

The fraud by Crowder and Nyang'oro (and to an extent Boxill) goes beyond those paper classes and it went on for 18 years and involved too many athletes. I think the NCAA can make the most serious charge of a Lack of Institutional Control stick.

 

[InVOLuntary]

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?

A benefit is a benefit whether it be financial or academic imo