Today's N&O features the second part of Dan Kane's four-part series ("Carolina's Blind Side"), an investigative look at the UNC athletic scandal. My suspicion is Kane is not merely just summarizing the history of the scandal in this series, but is preparing a strong "call for action" against UNC, with perhaps some new info to be shared. We'll see.
Kane's article can be found at: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102531722.html
For additional perspective, I wanted to share some commentary from an individual who is closely following the scandal coverage:
"While it is handy to have Dan Kane recapping and compiling the history of the scandal in a series of articles, it seems it will matter little as the NCAA doesnt give a rats rear end about sanctioning UNC in any serious manner commensurate with the size and scope of the scandal.
Kane's articles remind us that: 1) athletics and eligibility for athletes was at the root core of the scam; 2) UNC and its lawyers, staff, and Board of Trustees did not truly want to get to the bottom of things and were, at every step of the way, most interested in shielding athletics from harm rather than finding out what really went on; 3) the bulk of the bogus classes dispoportionately involved athletes, with some set up specifically for athletes and with athletes as the only enrollees, and that staff knew these were eligibility enhancers and were panicked when they were no longer available; 4) The classes were bogus and not merely "easy" in that they were fraudulently structured and were set up with fraudulent intent, violated the university's own policies and procedures, and had little or no educational value. However, in order to continue to shield athlete eligibility retroactively, UNC refuses to admit the classes constitute fraud but are merely some sort of unfortunate accident; 5) The years of denials, stonewalling, obfuscation, and half-hearted investigations betray that all UNC cares about is protecting its revenue sports programs, not rooting out the full extents of the problem. The implication of this track record, and the continuing defiance and denials by UNC and its expensive spin machine, is that the full extents of the problems have never been illuminated and that the same culture of "athletics first" still continues over there, just better concealed. They not only have not changed, they dont want to change.
By not connecting the dots, the NCAA has revealed themselves to be either incompetent and/ or complicit (most likely both). Kane has laid out the tapestry of UNC's corruption, rule-breaking, and cheating on a silver platter, yet the NCAA (and the ACC, as well as other journalists and media outlets) seem unwilling or incapable of picking up the baton and running with it. Certainly most of the NC public just want this all to go away so they can get back to watching them Heels play ball games without thinking about all this "junk."
The amended NOA is weak and pitiful. It likely will serve to severely hamstring the COIs options when they meet, which is exactly what UNC and its lawyers wanted. UNC wants to protect athletics at all costs and the bulk of their multi-million dollar efforts have been aimed at exactly that. They are scoundrels of the highest order." -- Marc O. Chambers (via PackPride)
My only criticism is that the ANOA Chambers refers to is a redacted version released by UNC; we have no idea what the unredacted ANOA contains. But the fact that a drastically altered ANOA was released hints at a deal struck between UNC and the NCAA. The problem for UNC is that although it may have struck a deal with the NCAA resulting in a less-detailed ANOA, UNC then rebuffs the NCAA in the UNC official response to that ANOA, saying, more or less: "Yes. Our athletics benefited by an academic scam, for a very long time. But you have no business in our academics." The NCAA's COI may or may not hold this brashness against UNC. We'll see.
Lastly, by addressing the UNC scandal in this series, Kane may be pressuring more than the NCAA. He may be building a case for and urging the DOJ and/or Congress to step in. We'll see.
Kane's article can be found at: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/special-reports/carolinas-blind-side/article102531722.html
For additional perspective, I wanted to share some commentary from an individual who is closely following the scandal coverage:
"While it is handy to have Dan Kane recapping and compiling the history of the scandal in a series of articles, it seems it will matter little as the NCAA doesnt give a rats rear end about sanctioning UNC in any serious manner commensurate with the size and scope of the scandal.
Kane's articles remind us that: 1) athletics and eligibility for athletes was at the root core of the scam; 2) UNC and its lawyers, staff, and Board of Trustees did not truly want to get to the bottom of things and were, at every step of the way, most interested in shielding athletics from harm rather than finding out what really went on; 3) the bulk of the bogus classes dispoportionately involved athletes, with some set up specifically for athletes and with athletes as the only enrollees, and that staff knew these were eligibility enhancers and were panicked when they were no longer available; 4) The classes were bogus and not merely "easy" in that they were fraudulently structured and were set up with fraudulent intent, violated the university's own policies and procedures, and had little or no educational value. However, in order to continue to shield athlete eligibility retroactively, UNC refuses to admit the classes constitute fraud but are merely some sort of unfortunate accident; 5) The years of denials, stonewalling, obfuscation, and half-hearted investigations betray that all UNC cares about is protecting its revenue sports programs, not rooting out the full extents of the problem. The implication of this track record, and the continuing defiance and denials by UNC and its expensive spin machine, is that the full extents of the problems have never been illuminated and that the same culture of "athletics first" still continues over there, just better concealed. They not only have not changed, they dont want to change.
By not connecting the dots, the NCAA has revealed themselves to be either incompetent and/ or complicit (most likely both). Kane has laid out the tapestry of UNC's corruption, rule-breaking, and cheating on a silver platter, yet the NCAA (and the ACC, as well as other journalists and media outlets) seem unwilling or incapable of picking up the baton and running with it. Certainly most of the NC public just want this all to go away so they can get back to watching them Heels play ball games without thinking about all this "junk."
The amended NOA is weak and pitiful. It likely will serve to severely hamstring the COIs options when they meet, which is exactly what UNC and its lawyers wanted. UNC wants to protect athletics at all costs and the bulk of their multi-million dollar efforts have been aimed at exactly that. They are scoundrels of the highest order." -- Marc O. Chambers (via PackPride)
My only criticism is that the ANOA Chambers refers to is a redacted version released by UNC; we have no idea what the unredacted ANOA contains. But the fact that a drastically altered ANOA was released hints at a deal struck between UNC and the NCAA. The problem for UNC is that although it may have struck a deal with the NCAA resulting in a less-detailed ANOA, UNC then rebuffs the NCAA in the UNC official response to that ANOA, saying, more or less: "Yes. Our athletics benefited by an academic scam, for a very long time. But you have no business in our academics." The NCAA's COI may or may not hold this brashness against UNC. We'll see.
Lastly, by addressing the UNC scandal in this series, Kane may be pressuring more than the NCAA. He may be building a case for and urging the DOJ and/or Congress to step in. We'll see.
