UNCheat caught selling team-issued shoes...allowed to stagger suspensions

[18in32]

No one would be derailed. The Law students would still be ABA accredited, the engineering students would be ABET accredited, the business school would still be AACSB accredited, the MD program would be LCME accredited, etc. on top of that, the state would legislatively accredit.

I'm no expert on this, but my understanding was that deaccreditation would mean that students would no longer qualify for govt loans, for example? Is that not true? Wouldn't govt grants for research projects be suspended?

I mean, if deaccreditation doesn't have huge effects, it's not much of a punishment. I thought the whole reason it was a 'death penalty' type of response was because it was such a big deal...?

 

[18in32]

NCAA is very clear about this. You can cheat as much as you want. As long as you report it and suspend your players NCAA doesn't give a öööö if 8 of your players took turns ööööing a goat in a publix parking lot in broad daylight then turned around and got paid in Camaros by bag men. Only idiots don't report $312 of merchandise and then give up a ööööing championship trophy over it. You should be mad at DRad not NCAA.

We did want to play DT, though, in the UGA and ACCCG and bowl, remember?

 

[LegendaryGT]

NCAA is very clear about this. You can cheat as much as you want. As long as you report it and suspend your players NCAA doesn't give a öööö if 8 of your players took turns ööööing a goat in a publix parking lot in broad daylight then turned around and got paid in Camaros by bag men. Only idiots don't report $312 of merchandise and then give up a ööööing championship trophy over it. You should be mad at DRad not NCAA.

I got enough hate over that to spread around.

 

[BuzzLaw]

Look, I think the NCAA sanctions against us were absurd. But these are totally different situations. Comparing a wrong done to an apple doesn't say much about whether an orange was wronged too. Several GT personnel specifically countermanded NCAA investigators' requests during the investigation, and among other things met with the 'suspects' about what the NCAA was going to ask them.

You are right. They are totally different situations. On one hand, a player said his family member gave him some shoes. The coach asked him before the game because he wanted to know if he was eligible. The violation was the NCAA didn’t want anyone to say anything or ask the player anything, and the NCAA didn’t want to investigate until after one or more games.

On the other hand, you had recordings/pictures of players getting paid, the colleges launched their own investigations and had lawyers talk to the players, and then the NCAA investigated and found nothing.

Seems legit to me. Thanks for reconciling all that. I always wanted to believe the NCAA held itself at the pinnacle of integrity. Thanks to you, now I can.

 

[18in32]

You are right. They are totally different situations. On one hand, a player said his family member gave him some shoes. The coach asked him before the game because he wanted to know if he was eligible. The violation was the NCAA didn’t want anyone to say anything or ask the player anything, and the NCAA didn’t want to investigate until after one or more games.

On the other hand, you had recordings/pictures of players getting paid, the colleges launched their own investigations and had lawyers talk to the players, and then the NCAA investigated and found nothing.

Seems legit to me. Thanks for reconciling all that. I always wanted to believe the NCAA held itself at the pinnacle of integrity. Thanks to you, now I can.

Sure, you're welcome.

 

[zippyGT]

I'm no expert on this, but my understanding was that deaccreditation would mean that students would no longer qualify for govt loans, for example? Is that not true? Wouldn't govt grants for research projects be suspended?

I mean, if deaccreditation doesn't have huge effects, it's not much of a punishment. I thought the whole reason it was a 'death penalty' type of response was because it was such a big deal...?

If UNC lost accreditation it would be ineligible for federal loans and probably would have lost most of its students. However there is more than one way to be accredited. Specifically, the State of North Carolina could have passed a bill legislatively accrediting UNC, which is what they would have done, and no one would have lost their student loan eligibility.

So why would it matter? Not being regionally accredited by SACS would be a huge embarrassment and UNC would want that back ASAP. To gain fresh accredition is a complex process that takes years and requires the equivalent of a stip search of all your processes and procedures by other universities. It would have been painful and embarrassing but would have proven that such an incident could never happen again.

 

[WreckRod]

If UNC lost accreditation it would be ineligible for federal loans and probably would have lost most of its students. However there is more than one way to be accredited. Specifically, the State of North Carolina could have passed a bill legislatively accrediting UNC, which is what they would have done, and no one would have lost their student loan eligibility.

So why would it matter? Not being regionally accredited by SACS would be a huge embarrassment and UNC would want that back ASAP. To gain fresh accredition is a complex process that takes years and requires the equivalent of a stip search of all your processes and procedures by other universities. It would have been painful and embarrassing but would have proven that such an incident could never happen again.

At the very least they deserve this as an academic institution and they should have to not play football or basketball for 2 - 4 years.

 

[77GTFan]

It was reported on our local newscast that many of the violators sold to a athletic gear broker for as much as $2,500. Giving Air Jordans with brokers willing to pay such a high price is not so innocent.

 

[GT98]

I disagree. But either way, it needs to be an honest system. And it definitely isn’t that.

I'd be curious as to why...

Under scenario #1--GT would fall further behind as GT would not be participating in payments/giving money to kids under a market scenario to where the kids "get" whatever their economic value is to a college team.

Under scenario #2--"Real" SA's. GT has a # of athletes that wouldn't be at GT without exceptions (as every school playing Div. I has). If you change that to requiring athletes to meet the same standard as regular students at GT, you will reduce the talent level on the football team significantly.

 

[GT98]

#2 on U

And you as well.

As I noted in my other reply, I'd be curious as to how people think that GT would be able to compete in the scenarios outlined of "pay kids $$$" (GT alumni aren't going to do that nor is the school) or requiring all athletes to be on par with the regular student body.

 

[77GTFan]

I understand the argument that we might be at an even greater disadvantage if schools could pay market value to athletes. But, that argument is basically saying, “Let’s deny the athletes their economic market value so that we can be better entertained by a system that distributes their value to coaches, athletic administrators, non-revenue sports, and bloated athletic departments. And, let’s prop up a system where under the table payments and academic fraud is largely ignored when perpetrated by the leading programs like Bama, UGA and Ohio State football and UNC, Duke and UK basketball.”

If we did away with the NCAA as a regulatory body and left it up to schools and their boosters to decide what they are willing to invest in athletes I think things would break down into conferences where schools wanting to spend at a certain level would gravitate toward one another. That we might then compete on a second or third tier is likely. But, I would be willing to try it based on fairness to the athletes and increasing disgust with the crooked and hypocritical NCAA.

 

[18in32]

If UNC lost accreditation it would be ineligible for federal loans and probably would have lost most of its students. However there is more than one way to be accredited. Specifically, the State of North Carolina could have passed a bill legislatively accrediting UNC, which is what they would have done, and no one would have lost their student loan eligibility.

So why would it matter? Not being regionally accredited by SACS would be a huge embarrassment and UNC would want that back ASAP. To gain fresh accredition is a complex process that takes years and requires the equivalent of a stip search of all your processes and procedures by other universities. It would have been painful and embarrassing but would have proven that such an incident could never happen again.

Why would having their accreditation stripped by SACS be any more embarrassing than the facts which supposedly justify stripping the accreditation?

The difference (obvs) is the reasoned judgment of the accreditors. An independent body looked at the facts and concluded they weren't as terrible as the headlines suggest they are.

I'm sticking by my conclusion. Peace –

 

[BuzzLaw]

I'd be curious as to why...

Under scenario #1--GT would fall further behind as GT would not be participating in payments/giving money to kids under a market scenario to where the kids "get" whatever their economic value is to a college team.

Under scenario #2--"Real" SA's. GT has a # of athletes that wouldn't be at GT without exceptions (as every school playing Div. I has). If you change that to requiring athletes to meet the same standard as regular students at GT, you will reduce the talent level on the football team significantly.

The main reason as to why is because it is the honest and right thing to do in a free market society. As to the "real SAs" comment. There are football players that can't read on some teams. They aren't going to college for an education. Their career is football. Those folks don't need to be in college. Make a minor league system or whatever. But either choose to let them get paid or choose to restrict it to actual SAs. Both will take thought, time and effort, but both can be done.

 

[zippyGT]

I understand the argument that we might be at an even greater disadvantage if schools could pay market value to athletes. But, that argument is basically saying, “Let’s deny the athletes their economic market value so that we can be better entertained by a system that distributes their value to coaches, athletic administrators, non-revenue sports, and bloated athletic departments. And, let’s prop up a system where under the table payments and academic fraud is largely ignored when perpetrated by the leading programs like Bama, UGA and Ohio State football and UNC, Duke and UK basketball.”

Isn't there a middle ground? NFL and NBA teams can draft high school players and put them in a paid minor league. Player can choose the minor league or NCAA, similar to MLB

 

[GT98]

The main reason as to why is because it is the honest and right thing to do in a free market society. As to the "real SAs" comment. There are football players that can't read on some teams. They aren't going to college for an education. Their career is football. Those folks don't need to be in college. Make a minor league system or whatever. But either choose to let them get paid or choose to restrict it to actual SAs. Both will take thought, time and effort, but both can be done

I agree that it's the right thing to do in a free market society. Do you trust the NCAA to be the one to implement this? The schools themselves?

Whose going to pay for a minor league system? TV? The NFL isn't and doesn't need to as it already has the colleges doing that for them. I do agree that dropping the phrase student-athlete would at least be honest about the situation for the majority of the kids.

It can be done, but again, I don't see where GT fits in. GT (whether the school or alumni) definitely won't be playing players a market rate. And putting a similar standard of academic qualifications on the athletes as the regular students would hurt GT much more than the teams on the schedule given a smaller breadth of majors, tougher entrance requirements, etc.

Hey, if the NCAA really did split into divisions where the kids major in football and those that are real students, I'd be fine with GT dropping down and grouping together with similar minded schools. I also suspect that I'm in the minority with that opinion.

 

[BuzzLaw]

I agree that it's the right thing to do in a free market society. Do you trust the NCAA to be the one to implement this? The schools themselves?

Whose going to pay for a minor league system? TV? The NFL isn't and doesn't need to as it already has the colleges doing that for them. I do agree that dropping the phrase student-athlete would at least be honest about the situation for the majority of the kids.

It can be done, but again, I don't see where GT fits in. GT (whether the school or alumni) definitely won't be playing players a market rate. And putting a similar standard of academic qualifications on the athletes as the regular students would hurt GT much more than the teams on the schedule given a smaller breadth of majors, tougher entrance requirements, etc.

Hey, if the NCAA really did split into divisions where the kids major in football and those that are real students, I'd be fine with GT dropping down and grouping together with similar minded schools. I also suspect that I'm in the minority with that opinion.

I wouldn’t trust the NCAA to manage my garbage service

 

[GTce93]

Isn't there a middle ground? NFL and NBA teams can draft high school players and put them in a paid minor league. Player can choose the minor league or NCAA, similar to MLB

I realize this wouldn't stop other improper payments, but why not just pay minimum wage for the hours "worked" by sport? I think NCAA limits to 20 hours / week practice (plus game?) time - so pay 'em all the same amount per hour (Federal maybe, since states vary). Loaded with issues, I know- but it could be a reasonable way to pay athletes for the values they contribute to the school (and others).