Today the N & O reported some statements made by Ramsay’s lawyer, specifically:
“We’re convinced that Devon has not committed any violation,” said former N.C. Supreme Court justice Robert Orr, who represents Ramsay.
“What we’ve had to do is back away from that penalty phase and try to address everything surrounding the violation question,” Orr said.
We covered this last night to a certain extent. The Ramsay case is particularly interesting to me because he played the first four games this year before being ruled permanently ineligible by the NCAA, and because his mother talked to the N & O about the specifics of his case back in November.
So what is it that Ramsay allegedly did that UNC does not consider to be a violation? This was covered in detail in this space last December. If you want to read the specifics, read our December article and/or the N & O piece linked above. Basically, according to the News and Observer, in a three-page Sociology 111 paper, a tutor rewrote Ramsay’s introduction and completely wrote his conclusion, rewrote parts of six other sentences (changing words and phrases), corrected ten punctuation/capitalization errors, corrected the verb tenses in four sentences, and rewrote eight sentences into sixteen. In a three-page paper, that sounds like a hell of a lot of work done by the tutor rather than the student. It sounds like a total rewrite.
But this is supposedly not a violation? That appears to be UNC’s story. After all, apparently UNC and UNC’s honor court found nothing whatsover — and let him play without missing any game time at all. Somehow the NCAA looked at the same facts and found him to be permanently ineligible. If you are keeping score, that makes five so far — Ramsay along with Marvin, Little, McAdoo, and Quinn.