ADVERTISEMENT

OT: UNC Scandal... NCAA COI Hearing in August

RUinPinehurst

All American
Aug 27, 2011
8,190
7,664
113
In its most recent ploy, UNC was turned back in its legal appeal to remove SEC's Greg Sankey from the NCAA infractions panel that is set to hear the school's case, involving FIVE Level 1 infractions including LOIC.

UNC sought this change on grounds of conflict of interest, per Sankey's ties to the SEC, and some sort of subtextual blood feud with the ACC. Say what?

Sankey remains and stated, on behalf of the NCAA, that "There will be no further delays, and the case will be heard on this schedule."

Per an article from the N&O, "UNC must respond to the latest charges by May 16. The NCAA enforcement staff then has until July 17 for its own response. Sankey wrote that his panel will hear the case in August with "anticipated" dates of Aug. 16 and 17."

Linky: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article145970734.html
 
  • Like
Reactions: rubigtimenow
Death Penalty or EVERYONE else turns their back on the NCAA.

If they are not punished harshly, just shut the NCAA down and everyone goes rogue.

So

Sick

of

the

BLUE BLOODS

Getting

Away

With

Cheating!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(while the rest of us suffer)
 
I expect more delays. We shall see. Also, ESPN coverage to begin............?
ESPN will spin this to make UNCheat the victim of a cruel legislative body. Then we'll hear the talking heads cry what a travesty this is. That or we won't hear a beep besides a scroll by on the ticker. The ACC is a Disney property after all, they have to protect their interest, while brainwashing children at the happiest consumer park in the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IMARUFAN and LC-88
Death Penalty or EVERYONE else turns their back on the NCAA.

If they are not punished harshly, just shut the NCAA down and everyone goes rogue.

So

Sick

of

the

BLUE BLOODS

Getting

Away

With

Cheating!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(while the rest of us suffer)

You do realize both Alabama and Southern Cal got probation in the last decade?
 
You do realize both Alabama and Southern Cal got probation in the last decade?
And that's what UNC will get. After all, the current crop of kids did not benefit... that's what UNC was delaying and delaying to get to... where they could use the PSU argument about how no one involved with Sandusky had anything to do with the program any longer.. why punish the players?

Watch Roy Williams. Is there talk of retirement? Going to the NBA? If that happens then UNC will be getting some real punishment.. if not, they think they will get away with it all.
 

The NCAA's Greg Sankey says otherwise, that there will be no more delays, and he resides on the COI that will hear this case and hand down sanctions/punishment.

The Raleigh N&O reported that the COI assigned to UNC's case comprises these individuals:

▪ Carol Cartwright, president emerita, Kent State and Bowling Green State universities

▪ Alberto Gonzales, former U.S. attorney general, dean and Doyle Rogers Distinguished Professor of Law at Belmont University College of Law

▪ Eleanor Myers, associate professor of law emerita, Temple University, and former faculty athletics representative

▪ Joseph Novak, retired football coach, Northern Illinois University

▪ Larry Parkinson, director, Office of Enforcement for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

▪ Jill Pilgrim, attorney and co-founder of Precise Advisory Group

▪ Greg Sankey, commissioner, Southeastern Conference, and chief hearing officer

(Gary Miller, former UNC Wilmington chancellor, stepped off the panel because he had attended UNC system board meetings where the UNC situation was discussed)

That said, any delay that might result, would be from the COI's (in)ability to process the infractions and pass judgement in rapid fashion, per the timeline communicated by Sankey. This case is so uniquely complex due to the period of scandal, the programs involved, the admin and staff involved, the number athletes who participated, etc.

And if the NCAA gets it wrong, the NCAA's days will be numbered.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Underdogs88

Sorry, the facts don't back up your statement. Southern Cal got a 2 year bowl ban, and lost 30 scholarships. (Plus the basketball team got a 1 year ban.) Alabama got a 2 year bowl ban, and lost 21 scholarships. Not anywhere close to trivial.
 
Sure hope Greg Sankey isn't related to Joey Sankey, UNC lacrosse Class of 2015 and I believe UNC leader in career points. Joey came out of Haverford Prep near Philly so I'm sure he's not his father.
 
Sure hope Greg Sankey isn't related to Joey Sankey, UNC lacrosse Class of 2015 and I believe UNC leader in career points. Joey came out of Haverford Prep near Philly so I'm sure he's not his father.

http://www.secsports.com/article/18246769/sankey-encourages-msu-grads-live-honorably

Sankey earned bachelor's and master's degrees from, respectively, the State University of New York College at Cortland and Syracuse University. He and wife Cathy are the parents of two daughters, Hannah Michelle and Moriah Elizabeth. Hannah Sankey graduated from MSU in 2015 with a degree from the university's College of Arts and Sciences. Her graduation, Sankey said, was the only time he rang a cowbell, fulfilling a promise he made to his daughter.
 
Sorry, the facts don't back up your statement. Southern Cal got a 2 year bowl ban, and lost 30 scholarships. (Plus the basketball team got a 1 year ban.) Alabama got a 2 year bowl ban, and lost 21 scholarships. Not anywhere close to trivial.
That is a cost of doing business to this mafia. A "scandal" every ten years for wins, banners, rings, money, prestige (THAT BRING IN FUTURE RECRUITS).

Its a wonderful business model.

If the NCAA doesn't strip UNC of every single win, pull down every banner, strip every photo from the walls and trophy cases, for the last 20yrs years, then a 2 year post season ban was worth the cost. Recruits in 2020 will get paraded around and be told "Look around you. Follow in the foot steps," and nothing will change.

What a beautiful business model.

(Michigan BBall paid the only true price the last 20yrs. Its UNC's turn)
 
That is a cost of doing business to this mafia. A "scandal" every ten years for wins, banners, rings, money, prestige (THAT BRING IN FUTURE RECRUITS).

Its a wonderful business model.

If the NCAA doesn't strip UNC of every single win, pull down every banner, strip every photo from the walls and trophy cases, for the last 20yrs years, then a 2 year post season ban was worth the cost. Recruits in 2020 will get paraded around and be told "Look around you. Follow in the foot steps," and nothing will change.

What a beautiful business model.

(Michigan BBall paid the only true price the last 20yrs. Its UNC's turn)

Stripping wins and taking down banners doesn't do anything. That's actually stupid. What allows schools to win is getting top recruits, and money to invest in the program. Stripping wins and banners doesn't affect either. If you really want to hurt a school, you take scholarships and impose postseason bans. That hampers recruiting more than anything. Recruits don't give a shit if you take down a banner from 20 years ago.

That aside, your point about blue bloods is completely contradicted by the facts. You can't get much bluer than Alabama, and Southern Cal, and both got significant probation. You brought up Michigan, another blue blood, as your example of the only team in 20 years to get significant punishment. Face it, your "NCAA doesn't get the blue bloods" is just factually inaccurate.
 
Stripping wins and taking down banners doesn't do anything. That's actually stupid. What allows schools to win is getting top recruits, and money to invest in the program. Stripping wins and banners doesn't affect either. If you really want to hurt a school, you take scholarships and impose postseason bans. That hampers recruiting more than anything. Recruits don't give a if you take down a banner from 20 years ago.

That aside, your point about blue bloods is completely contradicted by the facts. You can't get much bluer than Alabama, and Southern Cal, and both got significant probation. You brought up Michigan, another blue blood, as your example of the only team in 20 years to get significant punishment. Face it, your "NCAA doesn't get the blue bloods" is just factually inaccurate.
It didn't hurt PSU. They didn't even have 1 losing season.

PSU is 5yrs removed from, you know, and may play for a national championship this year.

Recruits don't give a shit if you take down a banner from 20 years ago.
All schools live and die for their legacy. Get a clue. It matters.
 
It didn't hurt PSU. They didn't even have 1 losing season.

PSU is 5yrs removed from, you know, and may play for a national championship this year.

And it didn't hurt Michigan either. Michigan had to take down its 92 and 93 Final Four banners......and the made it again in 2013.

Now, let's look at Alabama. They got put on probation in 2002. They went 33-30 the next 5 years, including 4-9 in 2003. They also lost to both Northern Illinois and Louisiana-Monroe, and lost to Auburn 6 straight years.

All schools live and die for their legacy. Get a clue. It matters.

Again, tell me how stripping wins and banners hurt Michigan. Since that happened, Michigan has made the Final Four in 2013, the Elite 8 in 2014, the Sweet Sixteen this year, made the tournament in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2016. Plus, they won the Big Ten in 2012, 2014, and 2017. Yeah, stripping 20 year old banners really stopped kids from coming to Michigan, didn't it?
 
And it didn't hurt Michigan either. Michigan had to take down its 92 and 93 Final Four banners......and the made it again in 2013.

Again, tell me how stripping wins and banners hurt Michigan. Since that happened, Michigan has made the Final Four in 2013, the Elite 8 in 2014, the Sweet Sixteen this year, made the tournament in 2009, 2011, 2012, and 2016. Plus, they won the Big Ten in 2012, 2014, and 2017. Yeah, stripping 20 year old banners really stopped kids from coming to Michigan, didn't it?
Its took Mich 20yrs to PSU's 5.

Stripping wins from the record books, right - whatever.

Stripping banners, trophies, photos, plaques from athletic centers matters. Its why programs CHEAT - and TAKE from those who don't. If you don't take down this stuff, IT WORTH BREAKING THE RULES.

IF WE DON'T PUNISH RULE BREAKERS WHY HAVE RULES????? WHY SHOULD RUTGERS EVEN TRY?

IF CHEATERS AREN'T PUNISHED WHY SHOULD WE SPEND A DIME ON TICKETS?
P1241799.JPG

MTGRLZELKDNHGMM.20120621182032.jpg

4098073797_0e8bd7018a_b.jpg
 
Its took Mich 20yrs to PSU's 5.

Stripping wins from the record books, right - whatever.

Stripping banners, trophies, photos, plaques from athletic centers matters. Its why programs CHEAT - and TAKE from those who don't. If you don't take down this stuff, IT WORTH BREAKING THE RULES.

IF WE DON'T PUNISH RULE BREAKERS WHY HAVE RULES????? WHY SHOULD RUTGERS EVEN TRY?

IF CHEATERS AREN'T PUNISHED WHY SHOULD WE SPEND A DIME ON TICKETS?
P1241799.JPG

MTGRLZELKDNHGMM.20120621182032.jpg

4098073797_0e8bd7018a_b.jpg

It didn't take Michigan 20 years. They only got put on probation in 2003. They were back in the tournament 6 years later.

Stripping banners doesn't matter. Again, it didn't hurt Michigan. They were back in the Final Four within 10 years. Kids don't come to a school just because a banner is there. Kids come to a school because those banners mean the kids have an opportunity to win while they are there. You can take down all the banners you want. That doesn't do jack shit to remove the infrastructure that produced those banners in the first place. That's why I gave you that Michigan example. Taking down the banners didn't do anything to hurt the infrastructure at Michigan, which is why they are back to making Final Fours and tournaments within 10 years of probation.

"IF WE DON'T PUNISH RULE BREAKERS WHY HAVE RULES????? WHY SHOULD RUTGERS EVEN TRY?"

They are being punished. I've given you several examples. You just have this idea in your head that stripping banners is going to have some gigantic effect, and it doesn't. As Michigan proved, stripping banners doesn't do jack shit.

Besides that, you were also wrong on your original point, which was that the NCAA doesn't punish blue bloods. That's clearly contradicted by the facts. When confronted with that, you try to deflect, and claim that the punishment is "trival," and that that the only significant punishment is stripping banners. As the facts again clearly show, stripping banners is like pissing in the wind. It hasn't proven effective AT ALL.
 
In its most recent ploy, UNC was turned back in its legal appeal to remove SEC's Greg Sankey from the NCAA infractions panel that is set to hear the school's case, involving FIVE Level 1 infractions including LOIC.

UNC sought this change on grounds of conflict of interest, per Sankey's ties to the SEC, and some sort of subtextual blood feud with the ACC. Say what?

Sankey remains and stated, on behalf of the NCAA, that "There will be no further delays, and the case will be heard on this schedule."

Per an article from the N&O, "UNC must respond to the latest charges by May 16. The NCAA enforcement staff then has until July 17 for its own response. Sankey wrote that his panel will hear the case in August with "anticipated" dates of Aug. 16 and 17."

Linky: http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/unc/article145970734.html

Extending that out a little further, you can expect a ruling from the NCAA 6-8 weeks after the appearance before the Committee on Infractions. Adding 6-8 weeks to August 17th gets you to September 28th (6 weeks) to October 12th (8 weeks).

Sadly, as a Louisville fan and alum, I have become something of an expert in this process....
 
Extending that out a little further, you can expect a ruling from the NCAA 6-8 weeks after the appearance before the Committee on Infractions. Adding 6-8 weeks to August 17th gets you to September 28th (6 weeks) to October 12th (8 weeks).

Sadly, as a Louisville fan and alum, I have become something of an expert in this process....
No sh*t, it seems like you guys go through this stuff every year. We don't experience much of this stuff here because we apparently suck at cheating as well. We like to tell on ourselves and then self impose harsher punishments than the NCAA requires.
 
It didn't take Michigan 20 years. They only got put on probation in 2003. They were back in the tournament 6 years later.

Stripping banners doesn't matter. Again, it didn't hurt Michigan. They were back in the Final Four within 10 years. Kids don't come to a school just because a banner is there. Kids come to a school because those banners mean the kids have an opportunity to win while they are there. You can take down all the banners you want. That doesn't do jack shit to remove the infrastructure that produced those banners in the first place. That's why I gave you that Michigan example. Taking down the banners didn't do anything to hurt the infrastructure at Michigan, which is why they are back to making Final Fours and tournaments within 10 years of probation.

"IF WE DON'T PUNISH RULE BREAKERS WHY HAVE RULES????? WHY SHOULD RUTGERS EVEN TRY?"

They are being punished. I've given you several examples. You just have this idea in your head that stripping banners is going to have some gigantic effect, and it doesn't. As Michigan proved, stripping banners doesn't do jack shit.

Besides that, you were also wrong on your original point, which was that the NCAA doesn't punish blue bloods. That's clearly contradicted by the facts. When confronted with that, you try to deflect, and claim that the punishment is "trival," and that that the only significant punishment is stripping banners. As the facts again clearly show, stripping banners is like pissing in the wind. It hasn't proven effective AT ALL.
Sir, with all due respect, are hopeless. You don't believe in rules and when broken, consequence that strip the incentive to break the rules again. In this case, a trophy case filled to get alumni to donate.

I feel for you.
 
Sir, with all due respect, are hopeless. You don't believe in rules and when broken, consequence that strip the incentive to break the rules again. In this case, a trophy case filled to get alumni to donate.

I feel for you.

No, I do believe in rules. I just also believe in reality, and you don't.

1) You claimed the NCAA doesn't punish blue bloods. The facts clearly contract this.

2) You claim that stripping trophies and banners is a deterrent. Again, the facts clearly contradict your assertion. Stripping banners didn't hurt Michigan. Stripping banners didn't hurt Southern Cal. Did stripping banners stop Michigan's alumni from donating? Hell no. Did stripping banners stop Southern Cal's alumni from donating? Hell no.

Michigan made it to the Final Four, and Southern Cal was #3 in the nation last year. Criticizing me doesn't change the fact that your prescribed form of punishment has been proven completely ineffective.
 
If your goal is to clean up college athletics, then it's ineffective.
Hey topdeck serious question in your opinion do you think unc gets the hammer or skates free? I think they've pissed off the NCAA and are going to get the hammer, then we'll see sanctions reduced in two years. One thing the NCAA doesn't like is being lied to.

I know one thing, they're taking their time because they don't want another Miami situation to occur and unc is using every trick in the book to stall. So they're following every procedure to a T in order to get this right. While unc is trying to manufacture a slip up they can exploit.
 
I think you can take both strategies. Reduce scholarships heavily and strip titles. Have ceremonies rewarding the runner-ups as champions. Cripple recruiting for 5-10 years.
 
Hey topdeck serious question in your opinion do you think unc gets the hammer or skates free? I think they've pissed off the NCAA and are going to get the hammer, then we'll see sanctions reduced in two years. One thing the NCAA doesn't like is being lied to.

I know one thing, they're taking their time because they don't want another Miami situation to occur and unc is using every trick in the book to stall. So they're following every procedure to a T in order to get this right. While unc is trying to manufacture a slip up they can exploit.

I think they get some kind of penalty. Probably not as severe as some would like.

Doesn't matter what anyone one's goal is. The answer is still obvious, unless you have an ACC bias.

Yes, it matters, because that's the basis of the discussion. If you would pay attention, this is how the discussion went. The other poster claimed that penalties like scholarship reductions and postseason bans were "trivial." He insisted that stripping titles was the only effective punishment. I was pointing out that stripping titles is purely symbolic, and is not a practical deterrent to cheating.

I don't have a problem with stripping titles. I never said that, and never implied it. I was simply rejecting the other poster's claim that stripping titles was an effective deterrent, and that other penalties were trivial. Your problem is you made an incorrect assumption about my position. It's a case of trying to be too smart by half.
 
Of course the other, obvious penalty, which I'm not sure is contractually possible, is to withhold TV and bowl money. Take away scholarships, ban postseason play and withhold TV money. That will get someone's attention real fast.
 
Of course the other, obvious penalty, which I'm not sure is contractually possible, is to withhold TV and bowl money. Take away scholarships, ban postseason play and withhold TV money. That will get someone's attention real fast.
Major fines to remove the financial incentive is what's needed.
 
Of course the other, obvious penalty, which I'm not sure is contractually possible, is to withhold TV and bowl money. Take away scholarships, ban postseason play and withhold TV money. That will get someone's attention real fast.
I don't think money will do much look at psu they're forking out hundreds of millions and moving on. Still a lot of tobacco money down there.
 
Of course the other, obvious penalty, which I'm not sure is contractually possible, is to withhold TV and bowl money. Take away scholarships, ban postseason play and withhold TV money. That will get someone's attention real fast.

It's possible to do. The problem is, it's more complicated, because now the TV contracts are directly with individual conferences. Up until the 80s, there was only one TV contract, and it was through the NCAA. They could easily withhold TV money back then, because they owned the contract itself.
 
About taking banners and trophies and so on...

How about a big wing of the various Halls of Fame.. dedicated to the cheaters where you can see all the surrendered trophies complete with nice displays about just how badly these schools cheated?
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT