Tar Heels can't cover their tracks: 20+ years of academic dishonesty

[goalieboy82]

now i feel like the other schools who did less and got punished should sue the NCAA.  

[dfwabel]

Roy entering the AD's office this morning...

[Lights Out]

Unreal:

 

 

[sc49erfan15]

A typo, huh? This is how I imagine it went down...

 

 

[Tanny81]

As a Duke fan i'm wholeheartedly loving this.

[dfwabel]

4 hours ago, Lights Out said:

Unreal:

 

 

 

14 minutes ago, sc49erfan15 said:

A typo, huh? This is how I imagine it went down...

 

 

Academic Fraud was NOT in the final NoA (Notice of Allegations) which UNC received. 

It was never an allegation by the NCAA.

http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article73760402.html

 

The five charges were:

1. Unethically Conduct/Extra Benefits

2. Unethical Conduct/Impermissable Benefits

3. Failure to Cooperate- AFAM Dept. Chair

4. Failure to Cooperate- AFAM Dept. Secretary

5. Failure to Monitor/LOIC

 

Moral of the story is "lawyer up" if charges by the NCAA. It appears UNC will have upwards of $20M in attorney fees over the seven years of this scandal.

https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2017/03/27/costs-unc-athletics-scandal-near-18m

 

The Chronicle of Higher Education has a good read on how educators feel about today's news.

http://www.chronicle.com/article/In-UNC-Case-No-Watchdog-for/241448

[dfwabel]

Whoops!

 

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article183717756.html

 

Excerpt:

Quote

UNC-Chapel Hill’s accreditor says it will look into statements the university made to an NCAA panel at an August hearing that showed support for classes at the heart of a long-running academic scandal that involved a disproportionate number of athletes.

 

Those statements, made behind closed doors in August and recently disclosed by the NCAA’s Committee on Infractions in its decision not to punish UNC, appear to contradict a promise UNC made four years ago to the accreditor that the classes would not be counted towards graduation.

 

The accreditor’s decision to review the statements stems from three passages in the NCAA’s decision that say the university stood by the classes hundreds of students took. The NCAA committee cited UNC’s backing of the classes for not sanctioning UNC because NCAA rules leave academic fraud determinations to universities.

Snip...

Quote

UNC is up for reaccreditation next month, which presents an opportunity for the accreditor to address how UNC handled the classes.

 

UNC officials have not explained the discrepancy between the 2013 agreement with the accreditor and the language of the infractions committee report. Joanne Peters Denny, a UNC spokeswoman, said in an email that UNC does not have a transcript or recording of the infractions committee hearing, which would show what UNC officials said. NCAA infractions hearings are closed to the public. The only public version of what UNC said in the hearing is the infraction committee’s report.