RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Zero punishment for UNC
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 11:54 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Sad but true ...

And it even happens at the high school level. There are schools in the DMV that will allow a player to transfer in on Tuesday and play a game on Friday.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 11:56 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The biggest problem here is that the accreditation process is so neutered. UNC gave credit for fake classes. If that doesn't affect a schools accreditation it is hard to imagine what could.


pilight



Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 66773
Location: Where the action is


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 12:05 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

willtalk wrote:
CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
r

The message is this...an institution can create whatever fictitious classes with barely-there curricula, as long as there is at least a few non-athletes in the class to show that it is for the exclusive use by athletes.


Yes and that message is a biggie.I believe this portend the effective death toll of the NCAA in respect to any eligibility control. It creates a huge loop hole that I am sure will be taken advantage of.

I for one have felt that the higher educational system has long become goal displaced. The value of a degree has paralleled the declining value of the dollar. Actual education has taken a back seat to profit.


NCAA members are virtually all non-profit organizations.

The NCAA hasn't cared about academic eligibility in a long time. When was the last time a player was declared ineligible based on grades?



_________________
Let us not deceive ourselves. Our educational institutions have proven to be no bastions of democracy.
willtalk



Joined: 13 Apr 2012
Posts: 1088
Location: NorCal


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 12:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
willtalk wrote:

I for one have felt that the higher educational system has long become goal displaced. The value of a degree has paralleled the declining value of the dollar. Actual education has taken a back seat to profit.


And the National Collegiate Athletic Association has precisely what role, if any, in addressing your vision of the collapse of the American educational system?


I never implied that it had a role. If anything the present issue is just one manifestation of the bigger problem. That being that the Institutions them selves care less about maintaining standards than they do about maintaining a profit margin. Nothing wrong with institutions operating out in the BLACK and out of debt, but when the purpose of Education becomes profit the quality surely suffers. Even I can remember a time when this sort of blatant disregard for academics would never have happened. If athletics were not such a cash cow this issue would not exist.

The Universities today seem to reflect the worst aspects of our society. One of those being the quest for profit and power. Athletics is only involved because it has become a major source of income for the Universities. Athletics did not corrupt the educational institutions, rather the inherent unethical dysfunction of the institutions corrupted athletics.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 5:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
CamrnCrz1974 wrote:


UNC athletes were 38% of irregular AFAM course enrollments, but only 4% of student body.

The message is this...an institution can create whatever fictitious classes with barely-there curricula, as long as there is at least a few non-athletes in the class to show that it is for the exclusive use by athletes.


So now now "a few" = 62%?

I suppose if you're creative enough with math, and loose enough with language, you can claim anything.


I only included the AFAM classes, not all of the independent study classes and other classes that were created under the scheme.

ArtBest23 wrote:

So what's the cutoff where the NCAA assumes the accreditors' role of assessing a university's academic quality and integrity? 30% athletes? 10% athletes? Any department or class in which a single athlete is enrolled? Any department or class in which a single athlete might potentially enroll? And what qualifies the NCAA for this role? Should the NCAA publish more rules setting forth that in all college classes of all member institutions there must be at least two three hour exams per semester consisting of no fewer than six essay questions, plus at least one research paper of at least thirty pages in no larger than 11 pt New Times Roman with no larger than 1 inch margins?


The NCAA's role is to prevent improper benefits. The classes were created for athlete eligibility, but then opened up to others. That is an improper benefit.

ArtBest23 wrote:
If the accrediting agency didn't do its job, then that's where the fault lies. If a UNC degree has become a joke unworthy of respect, then that's up to employers and graduate schools and fellowship boards to decide and to stop giving it unwarranted respect. But it doesn't make it the NCAA'S job.


Again, as I said, the NCAA's job, among other things, is to ensure that improper benefits are not given to student-athletes.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/18/17 10:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:


The NCAA's role is to prevent improper benefits. The classes were created for athlete eligibility, but then opened up to others. That is an improper benefit. . . ..


Again, as I said, the NCAA's job, among other things, is to ensure that improper benefits are not given to student-athletes.


Maybe you ought to actually look at the rules before you make up stuff that doesn't exist.

To start with, nowhere in the NCAA Bylaws is the term "improper benefit" used.

I expect the term you are searching for is "Extra Benefit." Now that actually is defined.

"16.02.3 Extra Benefit. [A] An extra benefit is any special arrangement by an institutional employee or representative of the institution’s athletics interests to provide a student-athlete or the student-athlete family member or friend a benefit not expressly authorized by NCAA legislation. Receipt of a benefit by student-athletes or their family members or friends is not a violation of NCAA legislation if it is demonstrated that the same benefit is generally available to the institution’s students or their family members or friends or to a particular segment of the student body (e.g., international students, minority students) determined on a basis unrelated to athletics ability.
(Revised: 1/10/91, 1/19/13 effective 8/1/13)"


As long as it's generally available to all students - which these classes were as shown by the reality that two thirds of the students in the classes were non-athletes - it's quite simply not a violation. If the school decides to hand out laptops or tablets to all students, or even just to all black students, or to put 60" HDTVs in all dorm rooms, or even just in some dorms which are open to all students, or to hand out SUVs to all students, it's not a violation. It doesn't matter if the motivation was to boost recruiting or to benefit athletes if the benefit isn't limited to athletes.

So under the CamrnCrz1974 Rulebook this would evidently be a violation, but under the NCAA rule book, it's not.

If you're really worried about "extra benefits" maybe you ought to focus on things
Iike laser tag facilities and float tube rivers and and movie theaters being built in football locker rooms exclusively for the football players. Now those things are definitely not made available to the student body at large.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/19/17 1:47 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Maybe you should not attack posters, as I am way more knowledgeable on this than you.

The extra benefit was not available to everyone; it was done later on as a coverup.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/19/17 9:36 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Maybe you should not attack posters, as I am way more knowledgeable on this than you.


Ok, Mr. Know-It-All, please identify the specific sections of the NCAA Bylaws that define "improper benefits" and which support your supposed violations.

Maybe you ought to learn something about the actual rules before you spout off.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/20/17 10:53 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Maybe you should not attack posters, as I am way more knowledgeable on this than you.


Ok, Mr. Know-It-All, please identify the specific sections of the NCAA Bylaws that define "improper benefits" and which support your supposed violations.

Maybe you ought to learn something about the actual rules before you spout off.


Perhaps you should read the facts and learn that the classes were developed only for student athletes and other non-athletes were added later on. This goes back 18 years.

But you can sit and attack posters, like you usually do. You got shut down on multiple threads when you were wrong about UNC, going back a few years. A shame no lesson was learned...


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/20/17 1:02 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
Maybe you should not attack posters, as I am way more knowledgeable on this than you.


Ok, Mr. Know-It-All, please identify the specific sections of the NCAA Bylaws that define "improper benefits" and which support your supposed violations.

Maybe you ought to learn something about the actual rules before you spout off.


Perhaps you should read the facts and learn that the classes were developed only for student athletes and other non-athletes were added later on. This goes back 18 years.

But you can sit and attack posters, like you usually do. You got shut down on multiple threads when you were wrong about UNC, going back a few years. A shame no lesson was learned...


One thing is for sure. You have a very active imagination. About many things.

I notice the conspicuous lack of citations to rules supposedly violated. Just more ad hominum attacks. Rinse and repeat.


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/20/17 5:17 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
One thing is for sure. You have a very active imagination. About many things.

I notice the conspicuous lack of citations to rules supposedly violated. Just more ad hominum attacks. Rinse and repeat.


Literally have been posting about UNC, with all of the evidence and analysis for two years, in this forum and the MCBB forum. Either you conveniently forgot about all of that, or you choose not to remember. Feel free to reference those posts; plenty of information, sources, citations, etc. are there.

Literally called you out several times in both threads and demonstrated why you were wrong in your statements. You went on the offensive and attacked me personally, as you do with other posters who dare to question your analysis.

Literally laughed out loud at you criticizing someone over "attacks," given your checkered history on this board.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/20/17 5:40 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Last comment.

That's all you ever do is, as you term it "call people out" with juvenile name calling.

What you never do is answer very specific questions such as that posed above - "please identify the specific sections of the NCAA Bylaws that define "improper benefits" and which support your supposed violations." You duck and dodge and weave and try to change the subject, but you never have the most fundamental answers.

Your whole silly crusade has gotten really stale.


PUmatty



Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16346
Location: Chicago


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/20/17 9:13 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
Sad but true ...

And it even happens at the high school level. There are schools in the DMV that will allow a player to transfer in on Tuesday and play a game on Friday.


Why should she have to wait. Shouldn't the player's be able to control their own labor and where they play? If a coach is hired midseason, she doesn't have to wait to start coaching. Why isn't what's good for the coach good for the player?


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 9:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

PUmatty wrote:
ClayK wrote:
Sad but true ...

And it even happens at the high school level. There are schools in the DMV that will allow a player to transfer in on Tuesday and play a game on Friday.


Why should she have to wait. Shouldn't the player's be able to control their own labor and where they play? If a coach is hired midseason, she doesn't have to wait to start coaching. Why isn't what's good for the coach good for the player?


Excellent point ...

I would say that one of my restrictions on player movement would be that high school or college players, once enrolled and attending a school, are committed to that school for the entire academic year.

No system is perfect, and a completely free system has flaws, just as any other does, and this is one way I would limit it.

In a completely fair world, I would say the same rule should apply to coaches, but I don't think that's a necessary restriction. Coaches can be given this privilege and the impact on the fairness of a more free system would be minimal.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7355
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 10:33 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:


That's all you ever do is, as you term it "call people out" with juvenile name calling.


Mirror, mirror on the wall,
Show Art the most juvenile name caller of all

Of all the people in the running for "most juvenile name-caller" CamCrz is nowhere on the list. CamCrz is known for being detailed and factual. All of the topics and questions you ask were previously answered in GREAT detail on earlier threads. CamCrz has a different legal interpretation of the rules than the NCAA does which he has explained in excruciating detail. I can't really blame him for not wanting to post it all over again since you can go look it up yourself.

This whole ordeal has been outrageous. UNC committed academic fraud over 18 years to keep prized athletes on the floor or field. And the NCAA is overlooking the whole thing. It's just sick.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 12:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
This whole ordeal has been outrageous. UNC committed academic fraud over 18 years to keep prized athletes on the floor or field. And the NCAA is overlooking the whole thing. It's just sick.


And yet many will claim the system is fine as it is and doesn't need to be overhauled.

And yet giving players freedom within this broken system will be a disaster, because, well, just because ...

And yet coaches and administrators make millions and some players aren't paid anything near what they're worth, and others are overpaid. (Consider this: The star quarterback and the No. 13 women's basketball player get the same benefits.)

And yet reform is anathema.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 1:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

So, per ready-aim-miss, "CamCrz has a different legal interpretation of the [NCAA] rules than the NCAA [i.e. the author and promulgator of the rules] does which he has explained in excruciating detail."

In plain English, CamCrz writes about fictional violations of his own fictional set of rules that have bupkis to do with the actual NCAA rules.

And to think you evidently wrote your post with a straight face. Amazing.


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 3:36 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The problem arises when all schools decide to cheat and ask for compensation for losses that they feel could have been wins if the NCAA had allowed their transfer to play and not sit Laughing Laughing Laughing Cool Rolling Eyes


Davis4632



Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 3:49 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Jay Bilas told his fellow Dookies and that NCAA wasn't going punish UNC but they preferred to listen to Dan Kane of the the Raleigh News and Observer, obsessed rival school posters like DevilDJ from the DevilsDen and Manalishi from the Pack Pride, and anti UNC Twitter trolls like CheatingBlueRam. They were so intent and desperate on destroying UNC, they were willing to accept any information that would lead to that goal. Their obsession lead to the one of the biggest catfish jobs ever.

https://storify.com/AcademicsTho/catfishing-with-the-count


Queenie



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18013
Location: Queens


Back to top
PostPosted: 10/21/17 5:50 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Knock off the name calling.



_________________
All your Rebecca are belong to the Liberty.

(now with spelling variations)
FrozenLVFan



Joined: 08 Jul 2014
Posts: 3510



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/17 9:40 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
readyAIMfire53 wrote:
This whole ordeal has been outrageous. UNC committed academic fraud over 18 years to keep prized athletes on the floor or field. And the NCAA is overlooking the whole thing. It's just sick.


And yet many will claim the system is fine as it is and doesn't need to be overhauled.

And yet giving players freedom within this broken system will be a disaster, because, well, just because ...

And yet coaches and administrators make millions and some players aren't paid anything near what they're worth, and others are overpaid. (Consider this: The star quarterback and the No. 13 women's basketball player get the same benefits.)

And yet reform is anathema.


I don't see how some of the reforms that you've been advocating, such as allowing agents and unrestricted transfers, are going to avoid academic scandals like bogus classes or allow athletes to meet schools' graduation requirements. In fact, fewer restrictions are likely to make academic achievement less relevant.

Maybe the answer is to have all the real student-athletes enroll in the Ivies, Patriot League, Div I "minor sports", and Div II/III schools, and let the pro-leagues set up their own farm systems, thereby removing the controversial financial and academic issues from collegiate sports and the NCAA's purview entirely.


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/22/17 12:26 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

FrozenLVFan wrote:
ClayK wrote:
readyAIMfire53 wrote:
This whole ordeal has been outrageous. UNC committed academic fraud over 18 years to keep prized athletes on the floor or field. And the NCAA is overlooking the whole thing. It's just sick.


And yet many will claim the system is fine as it is and doesn't need to be overhauled.

And yet giving players freedom within this broken system will be a disaster, because, well, just because ...

And yet coaches and administrators make millions and some players aren't paid anything near what they're worth, and others are overpaid. (Consider this: The star quarterback and the No. 13 women's basketball player get the same benefits.)

And yet reform is anathema.


I don't see how some of the reforms that you've been advocating, such as allowing agents and unrestricted transfers, are going to avoid academic scandals like bogus classes or allow athletes to meet schools' graduation requirements. In fact, fewer restrictions are likely to make academic achievement less relevant.

Maybe the answer is to have all the real student-athletes enroll in the Ivies, Patriot League, Div I "minor sports", and Div II/III schools, and let the pro-leagues set up their own farm systems, thereby removing the controversial financial and academic issues from collegiate sports and the NCAA's purview entirely.


My point is this: Power 5 NCAA sports are a big business that has little or nothing to do with the academic aspects of a university. Rather than try to shoehorn this huge industry into the educational process, drop the hypocrisy and change the standards for athletes, especially those in football and men's basketball.

So, for example, the rule could be that any athlete in those two money-making sports need not worry about being on track for graduation, and need only take eight units a quarter in any subject he desires. His compensation would be negotiated, and he could leave the system at any time.

Some, if not most, athletes would not be compensated over and above the scholarship and would likely attend classes and try to get a degree, as they will have no future in professional sports -- but the difference would be that they are not required to do so.

So UNC, for example, wouldn't have to come up with some goofy courses. Just have the stars take some easy courses while they polish up their games for the pros, and pay them what they're worth.

My goals would be to eliminate the sham academics that have nothing to do with football and men's basketball; acknowledge that the industry has nothing to do with education (except to fund it); and allow players to benefit from the skills according to their market value.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/17 8:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
FrozenLVFan wrote:
ClayK wrote:
readyAIMfire53 wrote:
This whole ordeal has been outrageous. UNC committed academic fraud over 18 years to keep prized athletes on the floor or field. And the NCAA is overlooking the whole thing. It's just sick.


And yet many will claim the system is fine as it is and doesn't need to be overhauled.

And yet giving players freedom within this broken system will be a disaster, because, well, just because ...

And yet coaches and administrators make millions and some players aren't paid anything near what they're worth, and others are overpaid. (Consider this: The star quarterback and the No. 13 women's basketball player get the same benefits.)

And yet reform is anathema.


I don't see how some of the reforms that you've been advocating, such as allowing agents and unrestricted transfers, are going to avoid academic scandals like bogus classes or allow athletes to meet schools' graduation requirements. In fact, fewer restrictions are likely to make academic achievement less relevant.

Maybe the answer is to have all the real student-athletes enroll in the Ivies, Patriot League, Div I "minor sports", and Div II/III schools, and let the pro-leagues set up their own farm systems, thereby removing the controversial financial and academic issues from collegiate sports and the NCAA's purview entirely.


My point is this: Power 5 NCAA sports are a big business that has little or nothing to do with the academic aspects of a university. Rather than try to shoehorn this huge industry into the educational process, drop the hypocrisy and change the standards for athletes, especially those in football and men's basketball.

So, for example, the rule could be that any athlete in those two money-making sports need not worry about being on track for graduation, and need only take eight units a quarter in any subject he desires. His compensation would be negotiated, and he could leave the system at any time.

Some, if not most, athletes would not be compensated over and above the scholarship and would likely attend classes and try to get a degree, as they will have no future in professional sports -- but the difference would be that they are not required to do so.

So UNC, for example, wouldn't have to come up with some goofy courses. Just have the stars take some easy courses while they polish up their games for the pros, and pay them what they're worth.

My goals would be to eliminate the sham academics that have nothing to do with football and men's basketball; acknowledge that the industry has nothing to do with education (except to fund it); and allow players to benefit from the skills according to their market value.


I think to " acknowledge the industry has nothing to do with education " is the tricky part , especially when there is lots of tax-free revenue involved .


ClayK



Joined: 11 Oct 2005
Posts: 11105



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/17 9:03 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

You're right about the tricky part -- but really, the issue is that fundamentally the whole idea of Power 5 football and men's basketball has zero connection to education except to generate income, directly and indirectly, for the universities.

It's like property the university rents out, or investment income, or taking a percentage of research projects developed on campus.

I haven't really thought much about it, but it would seem there would be a way to take those two sports and put them in some kind of accounting/special division that would make it clear that the players are only incidentally students and the rules are different.

There's no need to do that with the golf team, or water polo, and it would be even better if they could be taken out of the Title IX equation.

Basically, I guess, we're talking some kind of legislation to formalize the relationship between the two professional teams on campus -- football and men's basketball -- and the university system.



_________________
Oṃ Tāre Tuttāre Ture Svāhā
scfastpitch



Joined: 21 Dec 2009
Posts: 616



Back to top
PostPosted: 10/23/17 11:15 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ClayK wrote:
You're right about the tricky part -- but really, the issue is that fundamentally the whole idea of Power 5 football and men's basketball has zero connection to education except to generate income, directly and indirectly, for the universities.

It's like property the university rents out, or investment income, or taking a percentage of research projects developed on campus.

I haven't really thought much about it, but it would seem there would be a way to take those two sports and put them in some kind of accounting/special division that would make it clear that the players are only incidentally students and the rules are different.

There's no need to do that with the golf team, or water polo, and it would be even better if they could be taken out of the Title IX equation.

Basically, I guess, we're talking some kind of legislation to formalize the relationship between the two professional teams on campus -- football and men's basketball -- and the university system.


The last time congress looked into taxing big-time college football , there was one congressman who said something like " You know , it's like these schools are running these multi-million dollar businesses on the side . " Gee, ya think ? I don't know if he slapped himself in the forehead when he said that or not .
There has been talk on football message boards forever ( or since the advent of title IX ) about treating football differently . Title IX advocates call it the three sex argument . Males, females & football players .
And the rationale for treating football differently is that it makes a lot of money . At least it does at some places . Last time I saw the stats , 40% of division one football programs were losing money . Or at least they claimed to be . You think an NCAA investigation promotes anxiety . Imagine if the IRS were coming to look at your books to see how much you really owe .
So if they ever starting treating a sport or sports differently because they make money , I don't think it will be the schools themselves leading the way .




Last edited by scfastpitch on 10/23/17 6:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin