The issue was how do you flunk lower Algebra courses and pass Algebra III? Anyone that has been to college or had kids struggle with math would know the only way for this to happen is to cheat or have someone else take the course for you.
“Worst academic fraud scandal in the history of college sports.”
- Thread starter rikki-tikka-tava
- Start date
Thanks Herbert!
PC hiring of a coach already with sanctions.
The problem was that Sampson could actually coach, and his excessive phone calls are now legal.
And he was a janitor before he became a D1 Basketball player and proved Einstein's theory of relativity while eating a Chick Fil-A sandwich over his lunch break.
The accreditation agency hit them very hard. They were out on 2 years probation. Embarrassment for a top academic school. This for one of the top ranked public Universities, who is again top 10 this year was about as much as they could do. They were not going to lose their accredidation over it. You are correct it was only their issue to handle. They have nothing to do with athletics though only the schools accreditation.
The NCAA went above and beyond to punish UNC, they had no leg to stand on. 5 years 18 million spent multiple changes to find something to stick and pressure UNC to cave. Most schools can't handle the cost to fight that.
UNC spent 22 million and finally it was time to "put up or shut up" as UNC was fully loaded to file the next day. Federal Court case would be a walk in the park, the NCAA has on several occasions argued successfully in federal court against suits for class rigor of athletes on scholarship that they had no part in that. They then would have to rescind any punishments and pay damages like the Penn St. football ruling. UNC would of gone on the offensive too at that point and went after damages for the prolonged investigation and multiple changes as well at that point.
They chose to shut up rather then get hammered in court and forced to say they were wrong, but they pursued it 100%.
They certainly thought about dropping them.
https://www.cbssports.com/college-b...gency-considered-dropping-north-carolina/amp/
Poor journalism after the case. It was a serious punishment that was given on their part. When the author of the original expose from the Raliegh paper said they were considering it after the NCAA issue was resolved, the response was swift that no they were not, and unequivocally said he was misquoting or blatantly making the story up as it spoke to her response to his question if it was in play at that point. The probation was very serious and if they had violated it during it's sentence, then it would of been in play. By the time the NCAA closed the case it had been so long UNC was already well past the probation, and in good standing.
It was a major violation and treated as such by the accreditation office. The probation has been served, and a quick check of US News and World Reports current academic school ratings show no effect on the UNC's lofty academic status. Tied with Georgia Tech as #5 public school. IU is a fine academic institution and they are #31 in the same category.
Last edited:
Poor journalism?
This is a direct quote:
"Our board debated," said Belle Whelan, president of the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission, one of the two largest accreditation agencies in the country. "There were some that wanted to drop them."
Exactly how is a direct quote from the President of the accreditation agency poor journalism?
She immediately stated after his article that he contacted her after the NCAA case closed, asking if they might revisit accreditation. She very clearly stated NO, and publicly wanted to make that clear. He took a unequivocal no, and placed comments to the serious consideration oto the offense when they put UNC on probation, she added how long the NCAA investigation was surprising since the probation was already served and they were in good standing, that they were very happy with how UNC handled it with full compliance to a strict probation and oversight.
I understand the journalist's anger, as he is a well respected prize winning journalist, who received plenty of ugly hate over the time of his reporting the scandal, but he was reaching after the NCAA's decision and had egg on his face for the poor journalism (not on the scandal reporting), but with her after receiving a clear answer he did not like, and wanted to be different. She made that clear, immediately responding to his article. It was only him making the claim at that point of the article and how he tried to frame it.
Last edited:
Anyway it was terrible on UNC's part. They got egg on their face, and deserved it. The prize winning journalist was vilified and verbally attacked often and still gets that. He then understandably took it very personal and finished off with a poor reach to try to keep the punishment option alive, which was a bad look with that article.
Doesn't excuse UNC, by any means.
Doesn't excuse UNC, by any means.
I have been in Durham since 2013. NCAA played the 4 corner stall ball. Dragged out the investigation for years after the facts had come out.. waited until UNC purged itself of the people involved and waited for the story to become old news.. UNC got off easy.. but am admittedly not a fan.. I Think Archie will represent IU well and the team will compete well this year.
The longstanding UNC scandals can sure make you look at
college sports in a very different lens. This is the ultimate
NCAA shame.
You talking about this?
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article186019288.html
Here is the quote I believe you’re referring to:
“Referring to the Nov. 9 story, Wheelan wrote to Folt: “I have no doubt that it must have created much consternation at the University. I want you to know, however, that I did NOT tell Mr. Kane we were reopening the investigation into the University.”
This is the exchange from the interview between Wheelan and Dan Kane, whose work for the News & Observer helped expose the scandal:
“Kane continued: “You wouldn’t look at this and say, ‘Wait a minute, you know, the university wasn’t being truthful with the NCAA?’”
Wheelan replied: “If you print it, then we will look at it because we have a policy of unsolicited information. So if it hits the media and raises a question, then, yes, we would go back and review it again. So you are going to have to write about it first or somebody is going to have to bring it to our attention first. I’m not just going after the university.”
“OK, so I am bringing it to your attention,” Kane replied. “I am clearly stating that I’ve gone through this and I’ve seen this and I’m bringing it to your attention. So do you really need me to print the story for you to then go after...”
Here is the link to listen to the interview yourself:
https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article185994998.html
She stated if it was printed the “would go back and review it”. He did just that. Then, she wrote a letter to UNC Chancellor Carol Holt claiming she DIDN’T say that in the Nov 9th article.
Really is semantics if one is splitting hairs between “reopening the investigation” and “go back and review it again”. The FACT is that Whelan said they would look at it again but then didn’t. Even when presented with information that UNC was telling her accreditation agency one thing (the work was academic fraud) and the NCAA another ( that the wording of “academic fraud” was a typo.
Again, the NCAA tried to hammer UNC - but couldn’t. They had nothing to hit them with, no bylaws that had been broken. The accreditation agency, however, DID - even had information that could warrant the case to be reviewed, reopened . . . again, play semantics and term it however you wish. But the inescapable fact is they had the opportunity to go after UNC. And chose not to.
THEY were the ones who dropped the ball.
EDIT: Here is the Nov 9th article by Kane. Further evidence of what was said/not said:
https://amp.newsobserver.com/news/local/education/unc-scandal/article183717756.html
Last edited:
Under current NCAA bylaws he is.
Neither the NCAA or the accreditation agency is interested in pursuing this further because they know UNC will fight it in court. IMO both organizations want no part in going through a lengthy litigation process and spending big legal fees to hold UNC accountable.
Kane went through hell, and still is. He wanted to reopen the accreditation case, which she was clear had been covered. She stated clearly that if published they would have to look at the report, but the punishment has been served, and UNC was totally compliant, so the report would be erroneous. If you are looking for semantics it is on Kane and the Observer at that point.
Kane at that point was reaching and squirming to reinvent their investigation. I totally understand his anger, but the accreditation of the University was not in danger with his inquiry to "reinvestigate" what they had already did fully, leveling the heavy probation. They were currently in high standing. That was made clear. He reached after the NCAA had to finally stop and get off the pot.
Last edited:
Do you have a link to an article that quotes that? Because what was in the Nov 9th article or the recorded interview doesn’t support that assertion.
We read that quote and hers entirely differently then. He went to her and asked if they were revisiting their punishment that was investigated, penalized, monitored, and complied with, and completed in full acceptance. She told him if he posts an article that the process would be followed. That is a quick easy follow, the University was actually getting accolades from them and nationally for their standing after their full complience.
His leap that garnered the eye rolls was posting an article merely for the purpose of a mandatory process of checking the article into action. Twisting that to say that they were considering, it was in play. Her very clear letter stated as much. They were looking into their fully completed, monitored, and praised compliance to the probation, because of Kane's article, no worry, sorry for any distress at this point. Someone finding a way to print what he hoped for at that point. They were NOT considering reopening the investigation of the probation that they fully completed. She apologized for Kane's misrepresentation of that in his final gasp of an article.
I'm not ripping Kane's initial investigation. His effort to resurrect it with the accreditation board after the detailed probation was served, as if it was a possible open case they were looking into was far beneath his caliber as a reporter. He was hurt, and that's understandable.
His leap that garnered the eye rolls was posting an article merely for the purpose of a mandatory process of checking the article into action. Twisting that to say that they were considering, it was in play. Her very clear letter stated as much. They were looking into their fully completed, monitored, and praised compliance to the probation, because of Kane's article, no worry, sorry for any distress at this point. Someone finding a way to print what he hoped for at that point. They were NOT considering reopening the investigation of the probation that they fully completed. She apologized for Kane's misrepresentation of that in his final gasp of an article.
I'm not ripping Kane's initial investigation. His effort to resurrect it with the accreditation board after the detailed probation was served, as if it was a possible open case they were looking into was far beneath his caliber as a reporter. He was hurt, and that's understandable.
Last edited:
From what I read (and heard), UNC told the accreditation agency it wasn’t going to count the classes toward a degree to only get probation. Then during their NCAA hearing they flipped on that entirely, arguing the courses DID count.
At the time of the writing (Nov 2017) UNC was due to have a regular review of their accreditation. Kane posing the questions as he did was justified considering UNC promised one thing to keep from being hammered and then taking a completely different stance after their probation was over.
SACS could have done a complete review based on that. But as I said in another post, they knew UNC would fight it in the courts and they wanted no part of spending large amounts of money on a drawn-out legal process. They expected the NCAA to hammer them but had no interest in holding UNC accountable themselves.
We will have to agree to disagree. What I heard was the contention was from them dealing with the term fraud. Kane went with a question about that, and if that would put the accreditation back into play. He got a very clear it did not. Wrote the article anyway saying that it might put it back into play, which she had pointed out an erroneous article would have to get the look as procedure called for, but there was nothing new, they were very happy with the compliance. So that's what he went and did, knowing the answer already, saying it put it in some question. Which she went to great lengths to point out after he did so was not the fact at all.
'Ol Roy says come on NIKE get me some players lined up so I can win another title! UNC's got just the right classes to stay eligible.
Last edited:
Crean also had to release or force out quite a few Sampson's players upon
his arrival.
He didn’t have to. He decided to. And then he used it as a crutch for 3-4 years.
Sampson was a good coach that should not have been hired due to his recent NCAA sanctions, it was a PC hire forced by Herbert to downplay Davis leaving. An uneccessary risk to hire Sampson with baggage when other coaches without NCAA sanctions were available. Sampson's firing left a smoking crater at IU that took years to climb out of.
I agree with your comments, especially your last sentence. I totally forgot to, but should have mention that in my earlier statement. I thought about it afterwards, believe me. Good catch thanks!
