UNC's academic scandal
- Thread starter canderson
- Start date
By the way, the PR effort designed to obscure the facts of the case and soften the findings of the Wainstein Report is underway.
The following is from Bubba Cunningham, Athletic Director of UNC Chapel Hill:
This reminds me of the argument made during the sentencing hearing by the lawyer for one of the Manson followers. (I think it was Leslie Van Houten.) He estimated that the murders she had been convicted of represented a total of only three or four hours out of the totality of her life. So while her actions were deplorable, was it really fair for her to be judged on three or four hours out of her life? And who among us would like to be judged by the worst three or four hours of our lives?
Yeah, she got the death penalty. Will be interesting to see if the arguments of Bubba Cunningham go over better then this.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/28/4271606/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-unc.html
The following is from Bubba Cunningham, Athletic Director of UNC Chapel Hill:
This reminds me of the argument made during the sentencing hearing by the lawyer for one of the Manson followers. (I think it was Leslie Van Houten.) He estimated that the murders she had been convicted of represented a total of only three or four hours out of the totality of her life. So while her actions were deplorable, was it really fair for her to be judged on three or four hours out of her life? And who among us would like to be judged by the worst three or four hours of our lives?
Yeah, she got the death penalty. Will be interesting to see if the arguments of Bubba Cunningham go over better then this.
http://www.newsobserver.com/2014/10/28/4271606/ncaa-president-mark-emmert-unc.html
I think the death penalty is viscerally pleasing but misses when it comes to remediating the situation. They would be wise to allow a program to continue to compete under heavy financial sanctions but limited competition sanctions. Money would continue to come in, and it would pass right through the university's coffers to pay the fine and fund something beneficial not related to the school. Allow the school to act toward those who were part of the wrongdoing and are still employed or registered. (Let the courts take care of those who acted criminally.) Those student-athletes currently who are there now and everyone else associated with the school shouldn't be punished for things they had no part in.
They'll never do the death penalty again, and yet it's the only thing that actually makes a program regret its violations. You think Greg29 is going to give a shit about "vacated wins"?
As a general rule of negotiating, it's a good idea in most cases to permit the respondent the opportunity to propose a punitive remedy. If the proposal is insufficient, comment. If unresponsive, enforce. You've forced the respondent to show its hand, and cannot be accused of acting unilaterally.JayMags71 said:
The substantive part of my post was that generally going heavy on financial penalties and light on competitive sanctions has benefits.
Fred in Lynn said:
Honestly? They care more about the destruction of their football program. And they still got off light.
Fred in Lynn said:
I was going to footnote that Penn State is a unique case because literally EVERYONE regrets having a program that harbored child molesters, whereas breaking eligibility rules in order to field winning teams has its outright supporters. It also features the "but everyone is doing it!" defense, which I never quite heard from PSU.
It's fair to point out PSU, but I excluded it just because I didn't want to waste the space with that somewhat lengthy qualifier. Nothing like PSU has ever happened before in college athletics, whereas this UNC scandal is the umpteenth in the past decade.
Please don't take the context of the quote out of the reply.Average Reds said:
Why are you okay with sanctions that punish innocent people and don't punish the guilty? Reggie Bush broke NCAA rules and he wasn't punished; the school, players, coaches, and everyone else was. There is something unsavory, immoral, and lazy about that practice.
Not particularly no.Fred in Lynn said:
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/2013/04/08/penn-state-athletics-finances-2012-sandusky/2064641/
Some years they get more than that in athletics use only pledges from alumni.
I'm sorry, but are implying that money doesn't matter in a capitalist republic, that PSU doesn't miss the $60M it paid out? I think that's Rod Serling behind me.Cellar-Door said:
The NCAA has issues as an enforcement body. Keeping it simple would only benefit them. I felt a change in approach like the one I ran through earlier would only help them, while not continuing the terrible practice of punishing innocent parties in the way they do now.
I have no idea what you are talking about. You asked a direct question and I gave you a direct answer.Fred in Lynn said:
As to your point here, any punishment of an individual or organization will necessarily punish innocents. It's not a legitimate reason to resist an appropriate punishment.
Obviously, they'd rather have the $60m than not have it. Whether that was enough to deter future misbehavior by PSU or others, or (if you think it philosophically appropriate) settle the score from a punitive perspective, is a much more unsettled question.
I'm saying that they'd much rather cough up $60M than take any kind of significant blow to the football program that is the major driving force behind bringing in significantly more money than that.Fred in Lynn said:
Taking it away from PSU in particular, look at UNC. Do I think they'd pay $60M in fines every 18 years if it made them a top program? Of course, because the cheating helped them bring in far, far more money.
Monetary fines don't do much to deter behavior if the money made by the behavior is significantly more than the fine.
Cancelling seasons is the only punishment that would actually make schools not cheat, fines, a few scholarships, maybe a postseason ban? That just makes them try to cheat more effectively.
Infield Infidel said:
If you want to look at the UConn situation, the NCAA decided to punish current players for the APR issues for players from 5 years past. They banned them from the postseason and the Big East also banned them as a result from playing in the final BET.
They did let anyone leave I believe without waiting a year to transfer.. Roscoe Smith and Oriakhi transferred out
Average Reds said:
Yep. SACS may accredit the entire institution, but when you make substantive changes to that institution you need, depending on what you are doing, approval from whoever is accrediting you.
In addition to the university, individual programs are also accredited by various entities: http://oira.unc.edu/files/2014/05/Accrediting-Agencies-Table-April-2014.pdf
SumnerH said:
I have no doubt that Pat McCrory and the North Carolina Congressional delegation are in conversation with the White House and Department of Education about potential penalties for UNC. While I agree that SACSCOC should be empowered to make this call, I can't fathom a situation where they are allowed to issue anything more than some form of probation.
And I think it bears mentioning that Secretary Duncan has shown a willingness to work around existing regulations in order to achieve desired outcomes. For instance, see his legally questionable use of waivers to federal statue to encourage states to adopt specific reform measures (and in the case of Washington, revoke a waiver when adoption does not occur).
CSteinhardt said:
As we saw back in 2008 & 2009, a tiny fraction of a school's endowment is liquid at any given time and only a small percentage can be accessed each quarter. A quick estimate from their available statistics suggests undergraduates are receiving $55-60m in various forms of federal student aid this year and graduate students taking another $15-20m. I'd hazard that state aid programs and many private sources also require distribution through accredited institutions. It would take quite a while for the institution to liquidate $80m+ of its endowment, which means having to enroll fewer students.
And that shouldn't be a problem. What student wants to attend a university without accreditation? Even if accreditation is only lost for a year, how would other institutions read a transcript that has courses taken during both accredited and unaccredited periods?
Faculty would leave in droves. The loss of grant monies or even the temporary inability to apply for grants would be a huge detriment to faculty careers across all fields. Given the general quality of UNC faculty, it won't be hard for many of them to land new positions. They'd have few good reasons to stay.
Even a temporary loss of accreditation would be a massive blow to UNC, one from which it would take years, if not decades, to recover. A lot of innocent parties would get injured in the process.
AR - It seems insufficient and more plainly, wrong to discount the practice of punishing innocent parties as a necessary part of the process. It's not. It's an accepted convention from an organization that sucks at interpretation and enforcement of its own rules.
Cellar-Door/OFT - The specific merits of the $60M fine in the PSU case aren't what I'm arguing. Can't articulate again now. Need coffee. Go back a page or so to yesterday around 5:00.
Cellar-Door/OFT - The specific merits of the $60M fine in the PSU case aren't what I'm arguing. Can't articulate again now. Need coffee. Go back a page or so to yesterday around 5:00.
Tangentially related - Atlanta Journal Constitution has a fairly big piece today on scores and grades of admitted football players versus general population in the state's four Div 1 schools.
DrewDawg said:
Check out the other tabs - G Tech's football graduation rate is higher than State and Ga Southern's student body graduation rate.
Georgia has a somewhat generous "Hope" grade-based scholarship program. It's been tightened somewhat in recent years. I think a lot of marginal kids lose that scholarship along the way and end up not finishing school.
Fred in Lynn said:
Still a bit confused because you quoted my post, but thanks for the clarification. And apologies for the misunderstanding.
Fred in Lynn said:
I disagree slightly, in the sense that the innocent are almost always punished along with the guilty in any scenario. This is especially true when you are punishing misdeeds in college athletics, because the punishment is collective. The key is to balance the severity of the infraction against the severity of the punishment while attempting to minimize the collateral damage in the process.
Now, I have stated in this thread that I can't imagine that UNC will lose their accreditation as an institution because the severity of the punishment would be extreme and disproportionate. However, given the nature of the infractions (a two-decade long academic fraud designed to boost UNC athletics and enrich the university) and my suspicion that we've only uncovered the tip of the iceberg (which was tacitly acknowledged in the Wainstein report) I'm hard pressed to think of a case where it might be more appropriate.
The point is that if it's unthinkable for an institution like UNC to lose their accreditation over this, we're really admitting that accreditation boards are meaningless.
As far as sanctions on the athletics program(s), they should be comprehensive and without mercy. But I'll believe the NCAA has the stomach for that when I see it.
I've ranted about this before, to the point of being completely obnoxious and derailing threads.
Blow it up, blow the whole fucking thing up. the NCAA's current system is indefensible, it is hypocritical, it is unsustainable, it is Immoral.
in his grantland piece, Charles Pierce puts it better than I can:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-tar-heels-state-academic-scandal-big-money-no-surprises/
Blow it up, blow the whole fucking thing up. the NCAA's current system is indefensible, it is hypocritical, it is unsustainable, it is Immoral.
in his grantland piece, Charles Pierce puts it better than I can:
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/the-tar-heels-state-academic-scandal-big-money-no-surprises/
- spin off the revenue sports teams from the universities as for-profit corporations.
- let them paid massive licensing fees to the universities to use the school's facilities, logos, trademarks, etc.
- pay the players. if they are stars, pay them well. let them go to classes and earn degrees if they want, as part of their compensation, but end the fucking charade that students are at the schools to get an education.
- Kill the NCAA.
Dgilpin said:
Unless I've missed something, minor league baseball players are free to negotiate their compensation and there is no oversight agency charged with determining eligibility to play based on a fraudulent academic mission.
Comparing minor league baseball to college athletics seems like comparing apples to farm equipment.
Monbo Jumbo said:
Are those SAT scores correct? I thought the SAT was now out of 2400 which would make a 1445 not that great.
Average Reds said:
I'm sorry my comment wasn't related to the UNC academic scandal, rather OilCan's comment general comment these athletes would be better served in some minor league system outside of the NCAA. To which I disagree, and I believe in baseball's minor league system demonstrates this. Despite the ability to negotiate compensation, a majority of players are compensated with a wage which works out to be less than minimal wage under the false pretense minor league baseball is seasonal employment. In the system he proposes, like in baseball a small percentage of athletes would make out while a larger percentage would be worse off than they are now. At least currently athletes are provided with education (where or not they choose to take advantage of that is another story), room and board, and training facilities. The total value of these things far exceed the salary of a minor league baseball player and if properly utilized do far more to help a young athlete later in life than most minor league systems.
Sorry for the thread derail
That's fair. I'll admit that I was perplexed at the connection between the two and expressed it with snark, which I will remove.
If the idea is to remove athletes from college altogether and place them in a sports-entertainment context that is similar to the minor leagues, I would agree with your point. However, I think the idea is to remove the athletic departments themselves from the college/university system while allowing athletes to be part of both the stand-alone entity and the school. So they would still have the ability to obtain a free education if they chose to, but would not be forced to do so if they really had no business being a student.
For the truly gifted athletes it would be like the minor leagues, except they would avoid the trap of being underpaid due to the false promise of potential stardom. (They are the potential stars and would be paid like it.) For the solid player who may have no hope of stardom, they can still get an education to properly position themselves in the real world if their hopes are dashed.
No idea how the reality would play out, but that's how I understand the idea.
Edit: clarity.
If the idea is to remove athletes from college altogether and place them in a sports-entertainment context that is similar to the minor leagues, I would agree with your point. However, I think the idea is to remove the athletic departments themselves from the college/university system while allowing athletes to be part of both the stand-alone entity and the school. So they would still have the ability to obtain a free education if they chose to, but would not be forced to do so if they really had no business being a student.
For the truly gifted athletes it would be like the minor leagues, except they would avoid the trap of being underpaid due to the false promise of potential stardom. (They are the potential stars and would be paid like it.) For the solid player who may have no hope of stardom, they can still get an education to properly position themselves in the real world if their hopes are dashed.
No idea how the reality would play out, but that's how I understand the idea.
Edit: clarity.
Monbo Jumbo said:
GT has a pretty strong applicant pool.
There is nothing new about this. Strong athletes compose a totally different applicant pool with a lower bar. And yes, that applies to the Ivies and the likes of Stanford too -- they won't admit people who cannot do the work; but they will admit individuals who would not stand the proverbial snowball's chance in the regular pool. And if they deny that, they are lying.
dcmissle said:
Yes and Yes.
GTech has always been tough academically for atheletes. BC is a good comp. And it is one of the best D1 State schools in the country.
The interesting note in the article is that UGA refused at first to provide any data, and then later did provide data, but averaged it over the 6 years. They refused to provide the year-by-year breakdown. While it's always been tougher to get admitted to GTech, UGA has become much harder to get into as well in recent years. At the same time, their football program makes frequent headlines with poor off-field behavior from players. I suspect a year-by-year breakdown of the UGA data would show a dramatic widening of the gap between the football pool and the general pool over that time, which would not have reflected well on the Univ.
Monbo Jumbo said:
I noticed that too. Its pretty ridiculous because of course UGA could provide the year-by-year data in about five seconds with zero hassle if they wanted.
This is the real the tragedy as I see it. University of Michigan musky fishing team. Spending all your hours on the Detroit River or LSC. I make an awesome figure-8 for the recruiters on the board.Charlie Pierce said:
I'm wondering if Erskine Bowles is working on this behind the scenes. Can't imagine he's not deeply involved in the discussions, lobbying, etc on UNC's behalf.
Can't respond as long as I would like right now, but essence of response is that, in terms of $$$$, viewership, visibility, public interest, etc.,Dgilpin said:
LSU-Alabama (for example) >>>>>>>>>> Lansing Lugnuts vs. Quad Cities River Bandits
and it's not even close.
OilCanShotTupac said:
Talk about comparing apples to pumpkins. Wouldn't a more apt comparison be Kansas vs Iowa State? Both are power conference schools whose revenue, viewership, etc would be a lot closer to that of the minor league baseball game than a meeting between two of the premier programs in college football.
I'm with you that college athletes should receive some sort of compensation, but this example isn't really illustrative. That's like comparing the aforementioned minor league game to Opening Day.
Ok, I'll stop derailing the thread further.
Kansas-Iowa State generates literally 10x the revenue that the average PawSox game does, and the PawSox are the highest level of minor league baseball in a quasi-major market (more than 3x the size of, say, Manhattan KS) that feeds directly to the MLB team supported by an insanely passionate that also lives next to the stadium.
KU/ISU is not a good comp, unless you're trying to show how much more revenue college football generates than minor league baseball.
KU/ISU is not a good comp, unless you're trying to show how much more revenue college football generates than minor league baseball.
Aren't there 130x as many PawSox games as Kansas-ISU games?
edit- Just realized it was comparing one game to one game.
edit- Just realized it was comparing one game to one game.
I already bet a friend that UNC's discipline will be less than what UConn got for failing its APR scores (loss of schollies and one year tourney ban). Because three transfers left the school each behind in credits by one or two classes. That's got to be worse than a multi-decade fraudulent academic program designed to help athletes maintain grades and eligibility.
M
MentalDisabldLst
Guest
Average Reds said:
However, that situation is not an argument for why the players are somehow better-off in the farcical fairy-land where the good university gives these guys an education and a roof over their heads out of the goodness of their hearts (as Taylor Branch said, the whole arrangement has the "whiff of the plantation"). Rather, it's an argument that if you're going to have a true minor-league system, it should be among teams that are either captives of and affiliated with the majors (MLB, NHL), or truly free-market where no minor team has any obligation to any specific major team and competes honestly against other minor teams (European soccer; arguably, the NBA D-league, though my knowledge of it is limited).
The notion to spin off profitable athletics from the rest of the university is not new. I laid out one scenario back in June, in the other UNC scandal thread, for how you'd structure that to create as few losers as possible from the arrangement. The first reply to my proposal was from Jon Abbey, who said he'd proposed roughly the same thing back in 1984. It's one of those obvious ideas that is just going up against a huge amount of inertia, an immovable object in the bloated and ossified university system, and needs an equally irresistible force (like the federal government) in order to get it to give.
While I did not go into a lot of detail, I'd say that my original statement is more true than untrue.
Yes, the first year salary of minor league players is set by the basic agreement. (And yes, it's a paltry amount.) Beyond this, I'm pretty sure that minor league players who are not contracted with the major league club are free to negotiate their salaries.
There are also a number of independent (non-affiliated) leagues that are not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. On these teams, players are free to negotiate their salaries.
Of course, no one here is arguing that minor league players are not being exploited. Just that the comparison between these players and college athletes is imprecise at best.
Edit: to give a serious response.
Yes, the first year salary of minor league players is set by the basic agreement. (And yes, it's a paltry amount.) Beyond this, I'm pretty sure that minor league players who are not contracted with the major league club are free to negotiate their salaries.
There are also a number of independent (non-affiliated) leagues that are not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. On these teams, players are free to negotiate their salaries.
Of course, no one here is arguing that minor league players are not being exploited. Just that the comparison between these players and college athletes is imprecise at best.
Edit: to give a serious response.
The thing about this case is that it far bigger than sports.
There is the sports impact and showing how ridiculous the NCAA is, but frankly we knew this and while it's interesting to see how it plays out, I think most people understand that students do easy (if not outright fake) courses and degrees to focus on their sports. That's been just one of the many reasons the way the NCAA represents itself vs the reality of the situation is a farce.
BUT
Student loans debt and the debate on the value of a degree is being outright questioned as a whole in the country right now. Student loans are (in my opinion) one of the biggest economic threats hanging over the US (and therefore the world) today. Student loans are the most punitive type of loan in America, they cannot be removed by bankruptcy and can be passed down to your children.
In part this is due to massive cuts in government funding and crazily levels of tuition price inflation, as well as the growing trend to attend out of state school despite the extra tuition cost.
To find out that your children were taking class that weren't even real is fraud. It's criminal. You charged money to people for nothing.
Now I'll say that the questioning of the value of a degree vs the cost is also highlighted by the fact that young people do stupid things, but everyone I know did at least one class based on it being easy. I get it, but you are going into vast and potentially disastrous debt to go to a party school out of state to do fake classes? That's just crazy.
Further, the use of funding and pell grants etc means that funding was going to these kinds of courses vs real courses, so it helps cause a significant misuse of limited funding resources. (Where's congress on this?)
This is far bigger than sports. It's strikes to the heart of one of the biggest social questions facing the current generation (should I go to college) and one of the biggest economic issues facing America (a trillion + in student loans).
There is the sports impact and showing how ridiculous the NCAA is, but frankly we knew this and while it's interesting to see how it plays out, I think most people understand that students do easy (if not outright fake) courses and degrees to focus on their sports. That's been just one of the many reasons the way the NCAA represents itself vs the reality of the situation is a farce.
BUT
Student loans debt and the debate on the value of a degree is being outright questioned as a whole in the country right now. Student loans are (in my opinion) one of the biggest economic threats hanging over the US (and therefore the world) today. Student loans are the most punitive type of loan in America, they cannot be removed by bankruptcy and can be passed down to your children.
In part this is due to massive cuts in government funding and crazily levels of tuition price inflation, as well as the growing trend to attend out of state school despite the extra tuition cost.
To find out that your children were taking class that weren't even real is fraud. It's criminal. You charged money to people for nothing.
Now I'll say that the questioning of the value of a degree vs the cost is also highlighted by the fact that young people do stupid things, but everyone I know did at least one class based on it being easy. I get it, but you are going into vast and potentially disastrous debt to go to a party school out of state to do fake classes? That's just crazy.
Further, the use of funding and pell grants etc means that funding was going to these kinds of courses vs real courses, so it helps cause a significant misuse of limited funding resources. (Where's congress on this?)
This is far bigger than sports. It's strikes to the heart of one of the biggest social questions facing the current generation (should I go to college) and one of the biggest economic issues facing America (a trillion + in student loans).