Spot on.
Do I think UNC athletics knew what was going on? Sure I do - but there's a big difference between what I believe and what I can prove. Somehow, the NCAA has to be able to show UNC intentionally created AFAM for athletes.
Will Rick Pitino and 'ol Roy Williams programs get NCAA Sanctions?
- Thread starter ufo33
- Start date
Spot on.
Do I think UNC athletics knew what was going on? Sure I do - but there's a big difference between what I believe and what I can prove. Somehow, the NCAA has to be able to show UNC intentionally created AFAM for athletes.
Haven't seen anything that will bridge the gap between the "believe" and the "prove". Without a violation of actual rules, the NCAA will be in an impossible position of their own making. They ran by all of that with PSU and it blew up in their faces, forcing them to backtrack awkwardly. Doubt they'll be dumb enough to shoot off the other foot.
Last edited:
Louisville already self imposed greater sanctions than IU ever did. IU never got anything from the NCAA...it was all self imposed. And it was VERY minor...loss of one scholarship for a year and minor recruiting restrictions for that year. That's extremely minor. The problem for IU wasn't the NCAA...it was hiring Tom Crean.
IU also fired the coach, bounced some kids and basically rebooted the program. Actual Sanctions are a very very minor aspect of what IU did. I hate that it happened, but am proud that IU cut out all the cancer.
I don't think it was anywhere near that number of violations alleged, somewhere around 5 or 6. 64 would be off the charts unprecedented for an NCAA investigation.
Pitino will likely sit 5-9 games also they self imposed both ACC and NCAA last season plus lost I believe 4 schollys over a two year period. Despite all that it's sounding like Brian Bowen is giving UL a serious look but it's not likely to happen. UNC seems to be laughing in the face of the NCAA.
I thought we had already had this debate about UL and UNC. UNC will get off because it will be determined this was an academic issue and that non athletes benefited from the same courses as the athletes. I personally believe they cut the athletes more slack, but try to prove that without someone stepping forward.
UL will get credit for self imposed sanctions and the NCAA will do little more in the matter. Pitino will be allowed to finish out his career. UL has decided keeping a successful coach is more important than its short term reputation. They understand just like his infidelity, the public and media will soon forget this latest issue. The NCAA is slow to react. By the time they do take action, people will have largely forgotten.
If IU had delayed and fought for Sampson the way UNC and UL have done, we might have gotten very little in the way of sanctions as the NCAA relaxed the very same rules Sampson broke. His biggest issue would have deceiving the NCAA. That issue would have been forgotten in time or just been a suspension of a few games. The lesson learned is to drag things out until the public forgets and don't fire your coach as it is an admission of guilt.
UL will get credit for self imposed sanctions and the NCAA will do little more in the matter. Pitino will be allowed to finish out his career. UL has decided keeping a successful coach is more important than its short term reputation. They understand just like his infidelity, the public and media will soon forget this latest issue. The NCAA is slow to react. By the time they do take action, people will have largely forgotten.
If IU had delayed and fought for Sampson the way UNC and UL have done, we might have gotten very little in the way of sanctions as the NCAA relaxed the very same rules Sampson broke. His biggest issue would have deceiving the NCAA. That issue would have been forgotten in time or just been a suspension of a few games. The lesson learned is to drag things out until the public forgets and don't fire your coach as it is an admission of guilt.
Thankfully IU did not delay or fight for Sampson. That is exactly how a Pitino is created. IU also had issues beyond the seven illegal phone calls, including academics and weed.
What IU did is what sets IU apart and I never want that to change.
The UNC stuff is easily separated from NCAA rules. That may upset people, but it's not difficult to understand why academics goes beyond their mandate.
As for Sampson, IU should never be lauded for their response. The University knew he'd broken the rules for a second time during his IU tenure at the start of the 2007-08 season, yet they waited several months before taking action. Impossible to say they were competent.
The UNC case goes beyond just easy classes for athletes. These were actually fake classes with no instructor, no classes, and no assignments and/or assignments graded entirely by a secretary. A professor's name was then fraudulently applied to the official transcript without his knowledge (allegedly). There is plenty of documentation of these facts in the Wainstein report. It is obvious from all of the referenced emails and communications that these classes were an absolute sham to keep athletes eligible. It really should make no difference if non-athletes were enrolled in these fake classes. If an athlete was enrolled, then they were not actually taking a required course load and should be considered retroactively ineligible with all games vacated where this ineligible player was used. Furthermore, the NCAA does not have to PROVE anything. This is not an official court where guilt has to be proven beyond all doubt. With that said, the NCAA seems to have really dragged their feet on this case, but it is still an open investigation, so we can hope something gets done.
Please understand, I'm not in any way trying to defend UNC. I think they knew these classes were used exactly what we all think they were - to keep players eligible.
Having said that, what NCAA by-law did UNC break?
The problem, unfortunately, is that they didn't break any NCAA rules. UNC alums are understandably furious, as should be the graduates of any school that offers bogus classes (they're everywhere, including IU) or majors, but you still have to violate the existing rules to be punished, as the NCAA acknowledged after they overstepped on the Penn St. matter.
If the state police pull your wife over for being a lousy cook, they might be technically right, but she still didn't break the law. Speeders (IU, UL, OSU), on the other hand, get tickets.
The NCAA clarified their rules and guidelines about maintaining eligibility a year ago. They are concerned and have jurisdiction around Reporting (falsification or fraud ), grades, and progress toward a degree. The UNC situation enters the falsification/fraud territory. If action is ever taken it will be in that area.
I think the possible NCAA rule violation for North Carolina would be in the area of impermissible benefits.
It might be true that there are some pud classes to be found (even at Purdue) that all students are eligible to take. But I think I read that the UNC athletic tutors had a significant role in getting these players enrolled in UNC's special classes, writing their homework and some other things. I doubt the NCAA cares much if athletes get some additional legitimate tutoring (isn't education the whole point and athletes have demands on their time ? ) but I think the NCAA might care if a school is providing fake academic assistance just to keep a player academically eligible.
That sounds like it might be an impermissible benefit.
Even if you ignore the impermissible benefit angle, these athletes were not actually taking a required courseload (fake classes don't count) and should be deemed ineligible. Rashaad McCants made the honor role and has admitted to never attending a single class. Many athletes also exceeded the allowed number of independent study courses. Another clear indication that these athletes were ineligible.
The "honor role" is a wonderful accomplishment, but there's still no evidence that UNC broke NCAA rules.
I don't think IU should be lauded for their response, nor receive your criticism. They acted after discovering Sampson wasn't being honest. If IU wanted to be deceptive, they would have pushed the process out so Sampson could have completed what had been a pretty successful season. Whatever time they took to discover internally what had happened is a matter to take up with the university. A less reputable institution would have found a way to justify keeping their coach until the end of the season.
Heads would have rolled at IU if the basketball program were hiring hookers and strippers with athletic department funds. I can't imagine an academic scandal like UNC ocu
I agree it is extremely shady, but the NCAA isn't an academic accreditation organization. Worthless classes available to students outside of the athletic department makes the class just an institutional academic concern. If the program tutors (every program has them) did more than give advice or help the students out, then they would run afoul of the rules similar to Minnesota several years ago.
I doubt the NCAA is looking for evidence others completed work for the athletes. This has gone on too long without any ruling by the NCAA. My take is they see nothing they need to take action on.
Iu found out Sampson had again been dishonest with them in October of 2007. He wasn't forced to resign until late February of 2008. They knew about his repeat offenses for nearly four months before cutting him loose. They reacted. Eventually. But they didn't act immediately, nor did they react intelligently. There will always be those who will make excuses for why that is so, but they're either unable to see and understand incompetence or they're simply willing to look the other way. Regardless, IU could've and should've acted much sooner and they failed to do so.
Last edited:
Yes. IU did what it needed to do once the intern started finding red flags. Due process was followed as it needed to be. A number of people including recruits, parents, coaches and staff needed to be interviewed, logs collected and analyzed, attorney research and findings, executive presentation and approval...etc etc etc. those of us who have managed large organizations understand it can be a frustrating and slow process.
In the end, IU did what we expected them to do, as much as we hated the situation. Many institutions such as those discussed here would have taken a different path.
As I stated before, IF any action is to be taken, it will be under the Reporting and Falsification language in the rule book. Those were rewritten and clarified I believe last April. If the new language controls, it may not control prior to the new language.
Similar threads
