UNC Scandal: Context and Perspective

I saw an interesting proposal on PP last week (rswilli?) for a survey predicting the final outcome of the investigations currently underway at UNC. The choices were:
– Slap on the wrist
– Brick to the head
– Hammer of Thor
– Wrath of God

Before you make a selection, maybe a little rational discussion will help narrow your choices. So far, we’ve had a lot of discussion/speculation about what rules/laws have been broken and frightfully little about what the penalties for those transgressions are. If you love bantering rumors around, that’s fine with me. However, I want to move out of the land of speculation (and sometimes delusion) and into something a little more based in reality.

I hope to establish some context and perspective by listing pertinent information that has been documented in the main-stream media and what penalties would be expected based on the precedents set by previous NCAA investigations. I hope that this entry serves as a framework that we can add to as additional information is made public because new facts won’t change anything that is actually true today. New information will only add more clarity to the picture that I hope to start developing today.
.
.
ACADEMIC FRAUD

In the recent FSU scandal, the penalties levied by the NCAA included:

• Public reprimand and censure.
• Four years of probation (March 6, 2009, to March 5, 2013).
• Scholarship reductions in football; men’s and women’s basketball; men’s and women’s swimming; men’s and women’s track and field; baseball; softball; and men’s golf.
• Vacation of all wins in which the 61 student-athletes in the sports of football, men’s and women’s basketball, men’s and women’s swimming, men’s and women’s track, men’s golf, baseball and softball competed while ineligible during 2006 and 2007.

The FSU players also had to sit out 30% of their respective seasons.

The athletes could have faced complete ineligibility, but received a reduced penalty because Florida State accepted most of the blame for what happened due to failures by faculty members and academic officials and tutors in the athletic department.

One has to wonder if the FSU loophole exists for the cheating UNC players. To date, no one in authority at UNC has accepted responsibility for anything.

Chancellor Thorp has said that all athletes implicated in cheating will be subject to NCAA and Student Honor Court penalties. Since UNC is currently investigating the academic fraud (sort of like the fox looking for missing chickens), the university may choose to self-impose penalties before turning their conclusions over to the NCAA.

I have a unique business opportunity that I would like to discuss with anyone who thinks that the Honor Court will impose additional penalties beyond whatever UNC and the NCAA decide.
.
.

IMPROPER BENEFITS

In addition to recent high-profile cases from USC, Alabama, and Georgia, here is a little blurb that the NCAA put out in July in the form of a generic case study:

The student-athlete was declared ineligible due to the fact that he had signed an agreement with an agent. However, in light of the facts that the student-athlete acted in reliance on erroneous information provided by the institution and that the student-athlete did not receive material benefits from the agent, the NCAA student-athlete reinstatement staff reinstated the student-athlete subject to several conditions. The student-athlete was required to terminate his agreement in writing with the agent and withdraw from the NFL draft. The student-athlete was also required to repay $100 to the charity of his choice. Finally, the institution was required to withhold the student-athlete from the first 30 percent of the institution’s contests the following football season.

While there has been no discussion about signed contracts in the current UNC scandal, Cam Thomas has already admitted that Kentwan Balmer paid for a trip to California for himself and Marvin Austin BEFORE the 2009 season.

Of course no one could forget the oft-discussed South Beach trip that Marvin Austin claimed was paid for by Vontae Davis. Even if Vontae had paid for the trip, this would still constitute improper benefits. The fact that Davis has denied paying for the trip raises the obvious question about WHO actually paid for that trip since Marvin has admitted that he didn’t.

General note to UNC fans and especially IC participants: Anyone that claimed that the players were only going to serve a one-game suspension was obviously ignorant, misled, lying, or some combination. In any event, you might keep that in mind when evaluating any information that they post in the future as the investigations continue.
.
.
CHRIS HAWKINS

There is a lot of dirt swirling around this former UNC player. He paid Georgia WR, AJ Green, $1000 for a game-day jersey because he likes to collect jerseys. Don’t you know that the NCAA investigators would love to get a quick peek into Hawkins’ closet?

The NCAA has declared that Hawkins meets their definition of an agent. The state of Georgia is attempting to prove that Hawkins meets their definition of a drug dealer. Yet Hawkins has often been seen in Chapel Hill with football players and even working out in the weight room there.

Since Hawkins is now considered an agent, every drink, meal, jersey, shoe, or PACK OF GUM that he ever bought for ANY player is an improper benefit. But it is important to note that I have not seen any report directly connecting UNC violations to Hawkins. However the fact that Hawkins was, until recently, apparently given free reign to UNC’s players and facilities meets the very definition of “not good”. I think that it is obvious that Hawkins is either another “prong” of the NCAA investigation or at the very least, a broadening of the agent prong already in progress.
.
.

MARCELL DAREUS

Alabama defensive end Marcell Dareus was suspended for two games and had to donate $1,787.17 to a charity of his choice because of improper benefits in the form of airfare, lodging, meals and transportation for two trips taken to Miami during the summer. Early in the Alabama investigation, it was reported that Marvin Austin issued the initial invitation to South Beach and paid for the trip.

According to the NCAA news release, Dareus faced a four-game suspension, but the punishment was reduced to two games due to unspecified mitigating circumstances. The article linked above highlights several things that could be considered as mitigating circumstances:

– Dareus was lured to South Beach under false pretences (he didn’t know that agents were hosting the party he was going to attend with Austin).
– When Austin first made the news, Dareus told Alabama officials about the trip.
– Alabama immediately informed the NCAA and performed its own investigation.

Those facts MIGHT be enough for the NCAA to cut the normal suspension in half. The NCAA wants players and the schools to be open, honest, and forth coming with any actual or potential violations. If the penalties are the same whether or not you self-report, then this policy would actually work against the way that the NCAA wants things to work.

There is one more mitigating circumstance worth mentioning. The NCAA described Dareus as “one of the most truthful student-athletes we have ever interviewed.” A transcript of that interview would likely lock up web sites all over the Triangle.

Here are some questions to consider:

– If the NCAA considers Hawkins an agent, then what is their classification of Austin? If the NCAA determines that Austin is either an agent or a runner for an agent, then this moves “not good” to a whole new level.

– How could the NCAA penalize Dareus for a trip and NOT penalize Austin for the same trip?
.
.
JOHN BLAKE

As discussed by Steve Spurrier, Black Santa definitely has a reputation among college coaches. Now sometimes reputations are not an accurate representation of the person in question. However, grossly inaccurate reputations are far more common in Lifetime/Hallmark movies than they are in real life.

The reports of an insane number of phone calls and text messages between Blake and his former employer, agent Gary Wichard, pretty much settled the issue for every adult with a triple-digit IQ. However, the NCAA won’t issue penalties for reputations, frequent phone calls to an agent, or any other smoke…even if they are sure that there is a fire somewhere.

There might be records to uncover or the NCAA may have already uncovered something concrete linking Blake to NCAA violations. But it seems more likely that any wrong doing by Blake would have to come out through personal testimony. So if I was a UNC fan, I wouldn’t be concerned about anyone running their mouth….would you? 8)
.
.
LYING TO NCAA INVESTIGATORS

Dez Bryant was suspended for an entire year for lying to NCAA investigators. I’m just saying…
.
.

LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL

A pdf from the NCAA lists the following points to consider when evaluating lack of control versus failure to monitor:

– Duration/frequency of violations.
– Visibility of violations.
– Warning sings to institution
– Number of involved student-athletes/teams.
– Number of involved staff members.
– Significance of impermissible benefit.
– Recruiting/competitive advantage gained.
– Self-report or report from outside source.
– Multiple failures to monitor can be viewed as a lack of institutional control.

It should be obvious that reaching the decision of LOIC is a judgment call that will be made after all investigations are concluded. The list of things either ignored or not known by anyone in UNC’s athletic dept is growing quite large. Plausible deniability might work in a court of law…but is pretty meaningless to the NCAA.

Here’s what the NCAA had to say when discussing the USC penalities:

“The real issue here is if you have high‑profile players, your enforcement staff has to monitor those students at a higher level. It’s extraordinarily important that the people that are likely to be receiving these kinds of interactions from people outside the institution are also those same people who are going to provide a reward somewhere down the road. So high‑profile players demand high‑profile compliance.

I think that LOIC always results in a post-season ban. Can anyone think of an instance when it didn’t?
.
.
EXPECTED PENALITIES AND ODDS

Here are a few of the obvious penalties that could/will be imposed on UNC and my estimation of their likelihood of being levied.

Probation – dead certain.
The only question is how long? (FSU & USC – 4 years)

It is important to note that probation in and of itself is essentially nothing more than your one free strike. Get caught cheating while you’re on probation and then you can start talking about the “wrath of God”.

Player Suspensions beyond the first two games – dead certain.
However, since we don’t know who is accused of what (with a couple of exceptions), we can’t say which players we might see again this year.

Improper Benefits – players will have to repay the benefits and sit out 30% of the games. It would seem likely that anyone who can’t or won’t repay the benefits (ie donate the value of the improper benefits to charity) won’t be reinstated at all.

Cheating – minimum of 30% of the schedule.

Forfeited Wins – dead certain.
At a minimum, the wins from the 2009 season will be vacated because of Cam Thomas’ testimony of improper benefits. Likewise, all wins with players that are guilty of academic fraud will be forfeited. The questions are how many teams, how many years, and how many games?

Scholarship Reductions – dead certain.
Questions are: How many teams, how many scholarship reductions, how many years?

FSU FB – 6 total reductions over a three-year period.
USC FB – reduction of 10 scholarships per year for the next three years.

TV Ban – unlikely (for now)
A ban on TV appearances can still be imposed by the NCAA, even though it has not been used for many years. A TV ban was discussed for USC, but ultimately not imposed.

Lack of Institutional Control – somewhere between “possible” and “likely”
What we already know is enough that this should at least be a point of discussion and consideration for the NCAA. It won’t take many of the rumors to come through before LOIC becomes “dead certain”.

Post-Season Ban – unknown

Recruiting Restrictions – unknown
Even though Dave Glenn has been confused on this point for years, smoke is not sufficient for conviction…or even an accusation.
.
.
CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

It seems obvious that many State fans are hoping for hell fire and brimestone from the NCAA to level Chapel Hill merely because of the UNC fans that they have had to endure over the years. Living in VA, I haven’t had to endure any of that kind of crap. So I view the UNC scandal with a sense of curiosity more than with the blood-lust that I see from many State fans, even the ones that I know are otherwise level-headed individuals.

To date, the neatest thing for me to see is the complete destruction of Dave Glenn’s reputation among State fans. (His name has even been added to the profanity filter at Pack Pride.) He has been playing State fans for fools for years, certainly ever since the Amato/PR era. The advice I originally gave on Gregg Doyel (ie the Troll) over four years ago also applies to Dave Glenn:

– Don’t waste time refuting his silliness.
– Don’t waste time getting mad.
– DON’T GO TO HIS WEB PAGE.
– DON”T LISTEN TO HIS RADIO BROADCAST
– DON’T CALL INTO HIS RADIO SHOW
– DON’T BUY HIS RAG (originally called the Poop Sheet…seriously)
– Just ignore him. He probably won’t go away….but does it (or Glenn) really matter?
.
.

Would this be a bad time for our UNC readers for us to discuss where UNC football would be if they had hired Mark Richt ten years ago instead of Bunting?

About VaWolf82

Engineer living in Central Va. and senior curmudgeon amongst SFN authors One wife, two kids, one dog, four vehicles on insurance, and four phones on cell plan...looking forward to empty nest status. Graduated 1982

Editor's Picks UNC Scandal

50 Responses to UNC Scandal: Context and Perspective

  1. Tampa-Pack 09/21/2010 at 6:35 AM #

    Excellent realistic recap of the situation. Thank you for your time pulling this all together. It will be interesting to see which remaining “rumors” become “fact”, and where those facts lead the NCAA. It’s amazing what exists when you pull the emotion (from each side) out of the investigation – or “review”. Thanks again.

  2. waxhaw 09/21/2010 at 6:54 AM #

    Has there ever been a case where someone had a post season ban without a finding of lack of institutinal contol?

    Blake is the key to me. If a coach was steering players to an agent, which appears to be likely but may not be provable, then that seals the deal for MAJOR penalties to me.

    However, UNC’s apparent lack of forthrightness with the NCAA may be their ultimate undoing too.

  3. Sw0rdf1sh 09/21/2010 at 7:25 AM #

    Just curioius because I rarely subscribe to any of the things regarding Glenn listed by VAWolf above….

    Was this the bald fooker interviewing Jules in front of the RBC on the 99 the Fan the other day at the game?

    If so, what an idgit. Just as Jules says he is there with his fiance, turd says, “Oh, I’ve never seen you with her before…..”

    Really? Way to kick the legs out from under a guy in front of his girl.

  4. VaWolf82 09/21/2010 at 7:38 AM #

    However, UNC’s apparent lack of forthrightness with the NCAA may be their ultimate undoing too.

    Be careful not to associate being close-mouthed with the media with how they are dealing with the NCAA. In fact, UNC has said TOO MUCH to the media.

    Example – Two weeks ago, Baddour said that they were close to the end of the fact finding portion of their investigation. If that were true, why haven’t they released their findings to the NCAA and to the Student Honor Court?

  5. Alpha Wolf 09/21/2010 at 7:45 AM #

    VAWolf82 – as is usual – makes a good point. No one but the NCAA and UNC know what they are saying to each other and it’s risky to make any assumptions.

    As for penalties, it’s difficult to say what they will do with Carolina. The NCAA seems to be on a warpath in the post-Miles Brand era, and it would seem that at this point that the NCAA will punish UNC if for no other reason than to maintain its image of enforcer.

    Carolina would be wise to fall on the sword, swear it will never happen again and make some real changes in the way that it does business. I believe that one Indian Chief may be kicked off the reservation at year’s end to satisfy that need.

  6. McCallum 09/21/2010 at 8:23 AM #

    The abundance of idiots (headed up by Bane) at Pack Pride is one of the primary reasons this blog has really taken off.

    Gentlemen I suggest that unc is packing major heat. The list of judges, heads of major corporations, media leaders, community leaders, foundation heads, and major donors of all stripes gives me cause to believe they simply have too much power and influence to be dinged very hard in this matter. The massive silence out of chapel hill, the institution not the dumb athletes, tells me that some serious minded lawyers are playing a serious game over there. I also believe that the internal investigation is the equivalent to a bollo punch. The NCAA investigation serves as the decoy so to speak, everyone is watching it and once it folds up and results in nothing then unc can claim the high ground with their own internal investigation and suddenly that is that. Cleared by the NCAA with a few minor hits, and cleared of academic fraud during such a “serious” time of inquiry.

    I do believe they have looked at all the angles and certainly have put a public relations spin on the matter, we’ve yet to see how it will develop but I do believe it is in the works.

    OR they could be royally screwed which would cause me to send dean smith a case of Frescas.

    McCallum

  7. GAWolf 09/21/2010 at 8:35 AM #

    It sort of reminds me of this modern-day fable about corruption:

    Robert Earl Keen Mr. Wolf and Mamabear Lyrics:
    Mr. Wolf and Mama Bear were banging on the door
    I told ’em once, I told ’em twice, don’t come ’round here no more
    They’ve stolen all our chickens, they killed our neighbor’s cat
    Last night I saw ’em talking to big weasel and his rat
    It’s such a cozy neighborhood, we love our little town
    Lately things ain’t been so good, there’s something goin’ down

    It happened just a year ago; someone hired a band
    They had a dog and pony show that got clean out of hand
    There was fur and feathers flyin’, the son of the old goat
    Said Coon-boy pulled a shotgun from his worn out overcoat
    Bobcat killed Miss Peacock; Coon-boy shot the Mare
    While Mr. Wolf smoked opium and grinned at Mama Bear

    Two dead ducks lay there beside Miss Peacock on the floor
    [ Find more Lyrics on http://mp3lyrics.org/GpvM ]
    The fat goose grabbed the telephone and called the Dogs of War
    The guineas begged for mercy, the pigs began to squeal
    Coon-boy took the kitty, jumped in his automobile
    Bobcat and the wheelman, the famous Wolverine
    Shot out the light and in the night they faded from the scene

    Chief Detective Rambouillet did not work for free
    And Sheriff Hog was called away unexpectedly
    The sheriff’s re-election, the murder of the Mare
    Might get Hog implicated with the Wolf and Mama Bear
    So Rambouillet took up the case then shut it down for good
    He bought a house in southern France but lives in Hollywood

    The bodies of the bobcat and the famous Wolverine
    Were found inside a motel room outside of San Joaquin
    The city council voted the insurance board to pay
    The victims of that heinous crime upon that dreadful day
    And I watch from the shadows where beneath a frosty moon
    Mr. Wolf and Mama Bear feed on a dead raccoon
    Lyrics: Mr. Wolf and Mamabear, Robert Earl Keen [end]

    Check it out live here:

  8. choppack1 09/21/2010 at 8:48 AM #

    I still think the big question here is NOT what the NCAA does, but rather, what does UNC do to itself?

    We’re definitely getting mixed messages on the “what will UNC do to itself.”

    It’s hard to believe that they aren’t being somewhat aggressive due to the fact that they’ve held out 12 starters for 2 games already.

    On the other hand – they haven’t been transparent w/ their investigation either. There’s not a lot of evidence at this point that the school is going to try and win doing things the right way by taking the easiest route: Not recruiting kids who are borderline academically.

    Some things to keep in mind – the NCAA doesn’t need court room evidence for its findings. If Blake clams up – the NCAA can, and likely will hold that against UNC.

    Blake’s UNC-issued cell phone is subject to the sunshine act. If he had a laptop that is as well. The NCAA doesn’t have this power – but the State does, so this has to be considered when you say, Blake may not cooperate w/ NCAA officials.

    The other thing to consider is that when UNC chose to pay him, instead of fire him outright, they probably lost some high ground to the NCAA.

    At the end of the day, I don’t see this working out well for the Tar Heels. It’s appears highly likely that not only did they have more than 1 player involved w/ agent, but they also had the academic scandal – in addition, you had your Assistant Head Coach/Recruiting Coordinator resign after being implicated.

    The cheating scandal was allegedly uncovered during the NCAA investigation. In other words, had the investigation not existed, the cheating scandal would not be uncovered. Making matters worse, the alleged tutor was a tutor for Butch’s son.

    Quite frankly – it’s not a matter of whether there was lack of institutional control, but rather, did the obvious lack of institutional control constitute something more sinister.

    And this is where UNC comes to play. They are currently between a rock and a hard place. They already broke ground on a $70 Million upgrade. Essentially, this would have been like the foundation being laid for the RBC Center when the NCAA investigation began – if the RBC was funded by a few donors.

    The most simple path for restoring integrity at UNC – and avoiding the NCAA Hammer will be the most painful for their fans, and could create an awkard gap in Kenan Stadium: Announce that football players will be required to have a higher GPA than the conference and NCAA minimum. Announce that recruits will have higher GPA’s and SAT scores than the NCAA minimum. Announce that UNC will not play in the conference championship game for the next 2 years and that you will not accept post-season bowls the next 2 years. Announce that in 2012, UNC football will only have 12 scholarship at their disposal, in 2013, 15, in 2015 – 20. In 2016, they will get the full allocation.

    This would be worse than anything the NCAA will do to them. And they’ll get the NCAA golden seal of approval as a university that has shown the upmost cooperation – perhaps more importantly, it allows UNC to recapture some academic high ground.

    The good news for UNC is that they are handled w/ kid gloves by the media – and that the NCAA has shown a taste to handle some programs much more gently than others.

    The bad news for UNC is that you simply don’t know what the NCAA will do. It’s a little like a jury trial – you’re literally taking your life in your own hands if you leave it up to them.

  9. VaWolf82 09/21/2010 at 9:02 AM #

    The academic issues will generate alot of “sound”; but it remains to be seen how much “fury”. Based on the FSU scandal, the largest impact will be to forfeit past wins. FSU only lost a total of six scholarships over a three year period (2-3-1). FSU self-imposed the first two years, and the NCAA added one scholarship reduction in the third year.

    In contrast, USC lost 10 scholarships per year for the next three years for the Reggie Bush agent-gate and forfeited games as well.

    So the NCAA said alot of things about how awful the academic fraud was at FSU. But in the end, they leveled the more severe penalities for the issues at USC…which included LOIC. It looks to me like we can probably bound UNC’s scholarship reductions to somewhere between 2 and 10 per year for three years.

    In the end, it will be interesting to compare the UNC and USC penalities. In one case, you have one player getting alot of money. In the other, you have multiple players (maybe as many as six) getting much lesser amounts….but bragging about it on Twitter and Facebook. In both cases, the universities appear to have been completely ignorant of what was going on.

  10. GoldenChain 09/21/2010 at 9:11 AM #

    McCallum, while I agree with you on cheap wine I can’t agree with your fear of unx politicians, judges, media types, etc.
    The reality is that unx is a big fish in a small bowl in this area. The NCAA has a point to make and that point is that NO ONE SCHOOL is bigger than the collective. In fact, it is critical to the NCAA’s survival. End of story. And for that reason I suspect the penalties to be harsh.
    [email protected], you think they have more pull than USC?! USC will sue the NCAA if unx doesn’ receive a harsher penality for more monkey shines.

    Besides, its a myth that unx capializes industry, government, and legal professons; one proposed by their fans/alumni. They repeat it often enough that everyone believes it. Don’t give them more credit than they’re due.
    Last time I checked, a unxer was in charge of the Presdident’s commission to reduce the deficit……how’s that working out for ya!?!?

  11. LKNpackfan 09/21/2010 at 9:19 AM #

    Just to twist the knife – is the scope of this post limited to NCAA sanctions, or should we include consequences of the NC Department of the Secretary of State’s investigation? If Blake, Hawkins, Austin, or others violated the Uniform Athlete Agent Act, we’re talking criminal cases with felony charges.

  12. Moose Hunter 09/21/2010 at 9:21 AM #

    Couple points: I think you “dead certian” on forfeited wins iis a stretch. I think the players will have to pay back monies or some such. Also, regardless of what happens to UNC a lot of State fans will be unhappy with the punishment. We want to see a closing of the football offices over there, and nothing less will satisfy. Also, David Glenn is a tool.

  13. choppack1 09/21/2010 at 9:34 AM #

    VaWolf – What’s unique about the UNC case – is that they have both cheating scandal AND the agent issue.

    You would think that even if UNC was the picture of cooperation, they’d get a punishment similar to USC. While FSU lost scholarships and wins, if memory serves correct – it was just a cheating scandal – and I think as you noted, they found it themselves, the NCAA didn’t uncover it.

    Let’s just say that the NCAA investigation uncovers the following:
    1) MA and GL received improper benefits from agents.
    2) 6-8 players implicated in cheating scandal.
    3) Blake committed some minor investigations.

    Even if the scope is limited to this – and I think at this point – that’s highly unlikley, I think that you’d be looking at a scholarship reduction and maybe one year off from post-season play. UNC may be positioning themselves so that in October – they can say, “We’re not going to play a bowl game this year” – and they can say, “hey, we took a bullet! Now let us off the hook.”

    But like I said, if UNC truly cares about academic integrity, they’ll hit the program hard on their own. I don’t know if they really care about it though since they are surrounded by enablers.

  14. VaWolf82 09/21/2010 at 9:35 AM #

    When the SOS releases findings of significance, then it will be worth discussing. Until then, it is just so-much hot air from another politician.

    EDIT:
    I maybe too cynical here. But for now, all we know is that (1) a politication is talking about what a good job she is doing and (2) she is having people interviewed. Beyond that, I don’t know of much to say.

  15. bradleyb123 09/21/2010 at 9:43 AM #

    regardless of what happens to UNC a lot of State fans will be unhappy with the punishment. We want to see a closing of the football offices over there, and nothing less will satisfy.

    Speaking only for myself, and hopefully the majority of State fans, I don’t want Carolina to close their football offices. I want them sanctioned back to the stone age so we can enjoy many years of misery at their expense! If they lose their program altogether, we wouldn’t get to enjoy beating them, and watching them possibly sink to (pre-Cutcliffe) Duke football status.

    No, what I want is for most of the allegations to be proven true, and for them to receive an appropriate punishment for them. What I’m AFRAID of is them having more pull and power than any of us care to admit to influence people in high places to treat them with leniency. THAT is my big fear. And based on some posts I’ve seen at SFN, I’m not alone on this subject.

    I’m also afraid that anything found in their so-called internal investigation will just be covered up. ESPECIALLY anything that could potentially affect basketball wins and/or national championships.

    I’m afraid the faculty are also basketball fans, and will look the other way for the “greater good” of the university and basketball program. Our faculty threw us under the bus in the late 80’s. Will Carolina’s do the same? I’m not sure I trust them to do so.

    And how can anyone in their right mind NOT call for an independent investigation???

    The more I think about this, the more it feels like one of those movies where a corrupt cop is above the law and beyond reproach. And you spend the whole movie trying to figure out what they can do to nab the guy. That’s what this movie is about, and I’m afraid we won’t like the ending.

  16. VaWolf82 09/21/2010 at 9:47 AM #

    I think you “dead certian” on forfeited wins iis a stretch. I think the players will have to pay back monies or some such.

    Nope, it’s based on precedents set by the NCAA and public admissions of wrong-doing. Do you agree that any victory in which an ineligible player participated will be forfeited? If so, then it becomes pretty easy to list the basis for forfeiting games. (If not, refer to the NCAA discussions on FSU and USC and then continue reading.)

    Cam Thomas has admitted to taking improper benefits BEFORE the 2009 season. This made Cam (and MA) ineligible and all 2009 FB victories will be forfeited. The open question is how far back (and how many teams) can the NCAA establish UNC players accepting improper benefits.

    An interesting twist in this saga was that the NCAA has declared that Hawkins is an agent. This means that every drink, meal, jersey, shoe, PACK OF GUM that he ever bought for ANY player is an improper benefit. It will be interesting to see what gifts, if any, are documented between Hawkins and UNC players.

    In addition to agent-gate, academic cheating HAS occurred at UNC. In fact, UNC has already said that it may extend back over a year. They have also said that they are looking at other sports besides FB. Anyone caught cheating is ineligible. All victories that the proven cheaters participated in will be forfeited.

  17. Alpha Wolf 09/21/2010 at 9:52 AM #

    Gentlemen I suggest that unc is packing major heat. The list of judges, heads of major corporations, media leaders, community leaders, foundation heads, and major donors of all stripes gives me cause to believe they simply have too much power and influence to be dinged very hard in this matter. The massive silence out of chapel hill, the institution not the dumb athletes, tells me that some serious minded lawyers are playing a serious game over there.

    Just keep in mind that such a game has a nasty habit of blowing up in their faces and that they in turn may be required to protect their own reputation at the expense of their football fantasies.

    Put it this way: at some point you would stop protecting a friend who’s screwing up simply because it makes you look complicit to do so.

  18. bradleyb123 09/21/2010 at 10:02 AM #

    On a very off-topic tangent, I wonder what the Duke students will have planned for Carolinx the next time they come to Cameron Indoor Stadium. 🙂

  19. GoldenChain 09/21/2010 at 10:03 AM #

    “I’m afraid the faculty are also basketball fans, and will look the other way….”

    Dude, did you even read the comments from the Faculty Council last week?!
    EVERY school has pointy heads. And they all hate athletics. If this were up to them they’d go DIII.

  20. Scooter 09/21/2010 at 10:03 AM #

    It’s an election year and Mrs. Marshall is running for a Senate seat. I wouldn’t make much of the SOS’ investigation at the moment.

  21. GAWolf 09/21/2010 at 10:09 AM #

    I agree with VAWolf regarding the SoS investigation. I just don’t see that going anywhere significant. But obviously we could all be wrong.

    The REALLY interesting thing about this investigation is that the “prongs” are the first thing to show multiple problems that give rise to the dreaded “Institutional Control.”

    I’m sure this has been discussed at length elsewhere, but what was the last institution deemed to have lost institutional control?

  22. Alpha Wolf 09/21/2010 at 10:13 AM #

    ^ USC.

    LOS ANGELES — The NCAA threw the book at storied Southern California on Thursday with a two-year bowl ban, four years’ probation, loss of scholarships and forfeits of an entire year’s games for improper benefits to Heisman Trophy winner Reggie Bush dating to the Trojans’ 2004 national championship.

    USC was penalized for a lack of institutional control in the ruling by the NCAA following its four-year investigation. The report cited numerous improper benefits for Bush and former basketball player O.J. Mayo, who spent just one year with the Trojans.

  23. coach13 09/21/2010 at 10:20 AM #

    It seems to me UNC doesn’t really care what happens the rest of this year (national title shot gone…Coastal title fading quick). So holding out 12 players for 6 games no biggie. They can likely still get 6 wins and make a bowl.

    So…this self punishment thing of holding out 12 players is really nothing at this point. I hope they don’t get too much credit in the NCAA’s eyes for that.

    We are no closer to the end game of this investigation. I do hope they get as close to the death penalty as possible without gettig it.

  24. GAWolf 09/21/2010 at 10:23 AM #

    An interesting Kansas analogy:

    http://www2.kusports.com/news/2006/apr/22/ncaa_kansas_lost_institutional_control/

    Academic Fraud

    Those violations – which mainly consisted of trying to get junior-college signees eligible for the 2003 season – happened under coach Mark Mangino’s watch around the time Perkins was hired. Two of those violations were classified as “academic fraud” by the NCAA, a term KU officials shied away from when first making the violations public last summer.

    photo

    Photo by Nick Krug

    Kansas University chancellor Robert Hemenway, center, and athletic director Lew Perkins, right, listen as Rick Evrard, an Overland Park lawyer answers questions during a news conference Friday concerning the NCAA’s response to Kansas’ self report Friday morning in Hadl Auditorium. Last summer KU reported several NCAA violations that were investigated by Evrard’s Overland Park based firm.

    “What happened was, inappropriate aid had been given to somebody in regard to a correspondence course,” KU Chancellor Robert Hemenway said. “As it’s stated to me, that’s academic fraud, and we’re not going to tolerate that in any way.”

    Mangino denies knowing that violations were taking place, although he does take responsibility. Perkins and Evrard supported Mangino’s claim, both saying no known evidence existed that Mangino was aware of what was going on.

    Mangino and assistant coach Clint Bowen were admonished by KU for their involvement last summer, though neither was mentioned by the NCAA for having been involved with academic fraud.

    That allegedly was done by at least one graduate assistant in 2003. The two GA’s in ’03 were Mitch Running and John Papuchis, neither of whom is at KU anymore.

  25. GAWolf 09/21/2010 at 10:27 AM #

    Institutional control as defined by the NCAA:

    http://compliance.pac-10.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

    VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
    An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
    connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
    individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
    be due to a lack of institutional control:
    • if adequate compliance measures exist;
    • if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
    • if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
    • if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

Leave a Reply