Nightly Update Day 70

UNC Scandal40

Wow! We started this new nightly update thing just at the right time.  Tonight’s entry will not be as linear and organized as normal because I am pressed for time and the news is still developing and hard to analyze. 

Obviously tonight’s update deals with the NCAA issuing suspensions – Burney getting 6 games and Williams getting 4.

Before going any further, realize that these penalties are only for the “agent prong” of the scandals and that the NCAA investigation is ongoing.

First, some quick observations from the text of that linked article:

Burney, who received $1,333 in benefits, must miss six games and make repayment of $575.19 to a charity of his choice. Williams, who received $1,426 in benefits, must miss four games and make repayment of $450.67 to a charity of his choice.

Obviously there is something going on here — Burney received less “benefits” but has to sit out 2 more games than Williams?  Perhaps this discrepancy can be explained by this quote: 

According to the facts of the case submitted by the university, these benefits in part included trips to California, Atlanta and Las Vegas for Burney and two trips to California for Williams. The majority of the benefits Burney received were from an individual who meets the NCAA definition of an agent. According to NCAA rules, an agent is any individual who markets or promotes a student-athlete. The majority of Williams’ benefits were preferential treatment violations associated with visiting a former North Carolina football student-athlete.

I don’t want to split hairs and get off on a tangent, but how do you take those three trips Burney took for anything close to $1333?  Anyway, I think we can read between the lines here and add some names.  Everything points to the conclusion that Burney’s benefits were received from Chris Hawkins (as we have illustrated in several recent entries).  Twitter buzz tonight indicates that Williams’ benefits were received from former UNC-CH player Omar Brown, whom Williams and Burney visited in California — unrelated to Marvin and Cam’s ’09 California trip by the way.  Omar Brown’s seems to be a new name in this thing.  I wonder what kind of role he played in the UNC football universe under Butch!  I am sure more will develop on that.

Interestingly:

“We plan to appeal the length of the suspensions,” says Dick Baddour, North Carolina Director of Athletics. “While I respect the NCAA process, I believe the penalties to be unduly harsh given the individual circumstances in these cases.”

What do we read into that?  Is everything just appealed as a matter of course or does Baddour see something he does not like? I have no idea!

Twitter is just going crazy tonight on this story — we encourage you to follow us on Twitter at times like this when the information curve makes writing a summation almost impossible.  For example, this just popped up:

RT @ACCSports Interesting, spokeswoman said NCAA has ruled on all reinstatement requests made by UNC so far.

Other than the two ruled on today, the other UNC players thought to be involved in the agent prong of the UNC scandal are Austin, Little, Quinn, Brown, and McAdoo.

So what do we make of this action today?  Well, it looks to be getting more complicated in that it appears the “agent” prong of the scandals has split into two sub-prongs: the “Blake-Wichard-Austin” sub-prong and the “Hawkins-Brown” sub-prong.  It would seem that the NCAA has dealt with the Hawkins-Brown prong today and the Blake-Wichard-Austin sub-prong is outstanding.  From the outside, the Blake-Wichard-Austin sub-prong looks much more complicated and serious.  Because they were not ruled on today, can we surmise that Austin, Little, Quinn, Brown, and McAdoo are all involved in the Blake-Wichard-Austin sub-prong?  I would think that would be bad news for UNC were that the case.

ESPN’s Heather Dinich has a piece up tonight and then says this in her blog:

Two quick thoughts on this:

  • It’s not over. North Carolina was missing 12 players last weekend against Georgia Tech, not two, so there are still a lot of unresolved issues.
  • Trips to California, Atlanta and Las Vegas? Really? What were they thinking? And nobody knew about it? I’d be surprised if Burney and Williams are the only ones who will be held accountable when this is finally over.

Also today, Blake met with the North Carolina Secretary of State.  No details from the questioning, obviously, but this amusing quote from the linked article:

Blake has been under scrutiny because of his long-standing ties to high-profile sports agent Gary Wichard. Documents say the two worked together earlier this decade when Blake was out of coaching. About a dozen players coached by Blake have signed with Wichard over the years.

Smith has declined to comment on whether Blake received money from Wichard while coaching, calling that a “complicated” question.

Yeah, I always have found simple, one sentence questions with a yes-no answer “complicated.”

LOTS more to come on this, obviously.  We will try to stay on top of things with news and analysis.

UNC Scandal

40 Responses to Nightly Update Day 70

  1. wolfpackfan09 09/22/2010 at 11:35 PM #

    Im find it so hard to believe that this stuff is going down and its only part 1. I cant wait to see the second prong impale the UNCupcakes bubble

  2. PackerInRussia 09/23/2010 at 2:24 AM #

    “but how do you take those three trips Burney took for anything close to $1333”
    Maybe they used their frequent flyer miles. So, why do they not have to pay the full amount to a charity? Was it the same with those other cases mentioned in the “Context” post?

  3. Pack Mentality 09/23/2010 at 6:46 AM #

    I’m surprised Heather said that with the looming intimidation factor of those pine trees in her mind.

  4. Pack78 09/23/2010 at 6:49 AM #

    ^Supposedly, the players paid for some of the expenses at the time the trips were taken; I don’t think Bad-doer’s comments (and approach) will be well-received by the NCAA cops…

  5. PackMan97 09/23/2010 at 6:49 AM #

    Maybe they flew Southwest?

  6. packplantpath 09/23/2010 at 7:04 AM #

    I heard or read that the amount to pay back is typically reduced because many of the athletes would have no chance of paying it back if it wasn’t. Most don’t have $1500 laying around during college, and athletes are generally no different.

  7. Pack78 09/23/2010 at 7:08 AM #

    ^I’m thinking that a number of hole players have extra cash that most college FB players don’t…

  8. waxhaw 09/23/2010 at 7:10 AM #

    ^ Then they should be declared professional athletes, declared ineligible and sent on their way.

  9. ppack3 09/23/2010 at 7:29 AM #

    So, I’ve been to Vegas. Did these guys just hit the buffet and head on back to the room? If so, they are saints. If not, they had to have spent a bucket of unaccounted for monies.

    I guess I’m supposed to believe that their host didn’t ‘treat ’em right?’ The Tweets suggest that they were given the High Roller Treatment! $$$$$$$$$$$$

  10. Rochester 09/23/2010 at 7:42 AM #

    What’s interesting to me is that Baddour thinks 4 and 6 game suspensions are way too harsh in these cases, but the 10 other guys who have been held out 2 games already, and will definitely be held out a 3rd this weekend, are closing in on that amount of time already, by the university’s choice. So how guilty are they? Guilty enough that these two suspensions will look like nothing once they’re sentenced? Probably.

    Also, if Burney knew ahead of time that the Miami trip was a no-no because there would be agents there, why didn’t the other fellas who went down? Oh, they did, and they went anyway? I see.

    And, oh, HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Had to get that out, because this whole thing makes me laugh for some reason.

  11. Rick 09/23/2010 at 7:54 AM #

    This is about the most confusing thing I have ever seen.

  12. tuckerdorm1983 09/23/2010 at 7:59 AM #

    The punishment should be out for the season. It is not like they took a pair of shoes or a stick of gum. What really pisses me off is that they will be back on the field when we go to Chapel Hill. F$$KING UNC-CHeaters

  13. redredred 09/23/2010 at 8:13 AM #

    may be a dumb question, but are these games in addition to the ones already missed or do the two already missed serve towards the suspension?

  14. GoldenChain 09/23/2010 at 8:27 AM #

    Plant, I guess what you’re saying is that cheating pays?!

    And ’78 I have no idea of who this ‘Bad-doer’ person is but the AD at unx, Bu++doer, says he will appeal.

    I love it, the more they pretend that they did little wrong the dumber and dumber it makes them look.

  15. GoldenChain 09/23/2010 at 8:28 AM #

    redred, the two already served count towards teh total.

  16. LifeLongWolf 09/23/2010 at 8:36 AM #

    I agree TuckerDorm, this is way, way too light of a punishment. And the $$$ doesn’t add up either (for 3 trips).

    I think this is an indication of things to come. I suspect that UNC is well on their way to sweeping this under the rug.

    I hope I’m wrong, and I hope that the NCAA sets off a figurative nuclear bomb over there, but I ain’t holdin’ my breath!

    LLW

  17. packplantpath 09/23/2010 at 8:43 AM #

    GC, yea, I think it’s crap too to only make them pay back a portion of the ill gotten gains. But, I’ve read or heard on the radio that that is NCAA SOP, so what can you do.

    And of course cheating pays, at least until you get caught. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be worth the risk to some people. Stinks, I know.

  18. Scooter 09/23/2010 at 8:49 AM #

    @rick — yeah, untangling a web of corruption is like trying to untie a really big knot. It takes a lot of time, usually involves a lot of people, and there are often lots of loose ends to tie up.

    The dollar value that these athlete-“students” received accohrding to the NCAA is based on what they can prove. That doesn’t mean they didn’t receive more, just that the NCAA can’t say with any certainty that they did. I do investigations and some of this simply an exercise of the “bird-in-hand” principle. If you get too greedy with your investigation, sometimes you jeopardize what you’ve got nailed down. That’s also why we as State fans will not be satisfied — our bloodlust is running hot right now, and we’ve got every reason to feel that way. The last 20 years have been tough…

  19. tuckerdorm1983 09/23/2010 at 9:01 AM #

    slap on the wrist, the penalties should be punitive to the player and the school. WHY IS THERE NOT PUNISHMENT FOR THE PROGRAM???? WTF????

  20. Hungwolf 09/23/2010 at 9:07 AM #

    Connecting the dots in the case is something. NCAA states these the only two players UNC has asked for reinstatement. Didn’t UNC state before the LSU game they were awaiting word from the NCAA on the stauts fo the players? Seems to be a bit of cat and mouse going on between UNC and the NCAA. NCAA releases seem to contradict UNC press releases, anyone else agree?

  21. packplantpath 09/23/2010 at 9:11 AM #

    Hungwolf, I wonder if UNC requested reinstatement of these two prior to LSU and it took this long for the decision to come down. If so, seems everybodies story meshes.

  22. tuckerdorm1983 09/23/2010 at 9:19 AM #

    the way this is going, maybe by Nov 20th even Marvin will be back

  23. otisthetowndrunk 09/23/2010 at 9:21 AM #

    Just my interpretation. These guys were either cleared of the academic fraud, or got to take an F on the course and still have a high enough GPA to keep playing. These rulings were just on their trips (agent prong). I think many of the underclassmen not involved in agent prong do not have the GPA to withstand the hit of an F, and will probably be ineligible with season, unless they get a reduced sentence from the honor court. The other agent related suspensions are either more complex or also involved academic fraud.

    ^Marvin is not coming back, no matter what Butch says

  24. Scooter 09/23/2010 at 9:28 AM #

    @tucker — they’re not done yet. Penalties against the program/university will probably be the last thing they do.

    @Hung — it is unlikely that they filed the reinstatement requests that early. They would most likely wait until the facts were ascertained that they would make this request. Because UNC merely withheld these players rather than coming out with disciplinary action, it would appear that the NCAA took the lead and went with what they felt was appropriate based on their findings. I’m not surprised that UNC is appealing and they will probably do the same for all decisions that the NCAA hands down. After what looks like such a thorough investigation, however, they will have a lot less wiggle room in their appeals.

  25. choppack1 09/23/2010 at 9:46 AM #

    If I’m reading this correctly, UNC has only sought the reinstatement of these 2 players at this time.

    We know that UNC says that they are trying to get more feedback from the NCAA. What UNC may be doing is saying, “We’ve done this, this and this – can we file our reinstatement now?”

    The NCAA will likely say, “sure”.

    But then if they are smart, UNC will say, given what you know, if you file it, will they get reinstated?

    That’s when the NCAA would say “There’s a good chance” or “We’re still conducting our own investigation on these guys, so submit it at your own peril.”

1 2

Leave a Reply