I am no attorney but maybe there are some on this site that can bring some clarity to UNC legal issues concerning their cheating with fake classes.

My question is, if the NCAA lets UNC get by with cheating without being held accountable can the many schools who have been penalized in the past for cheating bring a class action suit against the NCAA for damage to their teams, money lost & robbing opportunities for their student athletes to compete; which kept them from possibly earning their full potential as future professional athletes.

uh, let's put it this way. If you commit murder and the DA and judge decide not to give you jail time, should all the convicted murderers spending 20 years or more behind bars be able to appeal their sentences because you were able to get off with a warning?

It depends on the reason. "Lack of due process," doesn't seem likely but could trigger additional lawsuits. "Lack of evidence" doesn't seem like it would help previous cases.

I don't know the requirements for class action but it doesn't seem like it would apply.

UNC's issue is that the NCAA never really thought to adopt rules that would address something like fake classes.
Story is that during one meeting an attorney for UNC slid the NCAA rulebook across the table and challenged the NCAA representatives to cite the rule that gave the NCAA jurisdiction over the academic issues.

The body with the real jurisdiction is the accrediting body but they have a terrible toolbox. Their punishments available are basically close the school or a sternly written letter with nothing in-between.

(04-04-2017 11:11 PM)Stugray2 Wrote:  uh, let's put it this way. If you commit murder and the DA and judge decide not to give you jail time, should all the convicted murderers spending 20 years or more behind bars be able to appeal their sentences because you were able to get off with a warning?

False analogy.

At this point in time, the NCAA - and the universities and athletic programs it is responsible for overseeing - has become too large and too vast to be an efficient governing body. Football and basketball will always be the top sports, but there are so many sports and athletic teams in Division 1 that it is impossible for them to responsibly watch over.

I'm not sure what the appropriate answer is, but I would think that allowing conferences to govern themselves and give oversight would be a step in the right direction. Watching over 10, 12 or 14 athletic programs is a lot easier than watching over and policing 250.

(04-05-2017 08:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UNC's issue is that the NCAA never really thought to adopt rules that would address something like fake classes.
Story is that during one meeting an attorney for UNC slid the NCAA rulebook across the table and challenged the NCAA representatives to cite the rule that gave the NCAA jurisdiction over the academic issues.

The body with the real jurisdiction is the accrediting body but they have a terrible toolbox. Their punishments available are basically close the school or a sternly written letter with nothing in-between.

Agreed. The NCAA is set up to police $100 handshakes or providing free tatoos, but it doesn't really know how to deal with academic fraud or even criminal activity (see Sandusky and Penn State)... and maybe that's fine since those issues are outside the realm of the NCAA's expertise.

We also all know that UNC's accreditation isn't going anywhere in practicality.

(04-05-2017 08:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UNC's issue is that the NCAA never really thought to adopt rules that would address something like fake classes.
Story is that during one meeting an attorney for UNC slid the NCAA rulebook across the table and challenged the NCAA representatives to cite the rule that gave the NCAA jurisdiction over the academic issues.

The body with the real jurisdiction is the accrediting body but they have a terrible toolbox. Their punishments available are basically close the school or a sternly written letter with nothing in-between.

That doesn't matter. We live in a common law system. If you're not following the spirit of the contract, they can punish you for it and in some cases it will still be upheld in court. I'd say this is one of those cases - the NCAA says that the athletes must be students who pass their classes, so it's implied that those classes have to be bona fide college classes.

If you want a system where every conceivable scenario has to be spelled out in the contract, then you need to go to a civil law system like France or most of South America.

This is what happens when the making and practice of law no longer involves common sense, but rather intentionally built in loop holes and lack of specificity. But it is profitable for the legal system and those who can afford it. But publicly when legality no longer corresponds with common sense the people recognize it all as hypocrisy.

(04-04-2017 10:33 PM)Rabonchild Wrote:  I am no attorney but maybe there are some on this site that can bring some clarity to UNC legal issues concerning their cheating with fake classes.

My question is, if the NCAA lets UNC get by with cheating without being held accountable can the many schools who have been penalized in the past for cheating bring a class action suit against the NCAA for damage to their teams, money lost & robbing opportunities for their student athletes to compete; which kept them from possibly earning their full potential as future professional athletes.

I think it's a great question.

UConn was punished in 2013 for not meeting required APR scores, retroactively. UConn would've been better off just lying about their scores. UConn absolutely would've made the NCAA's in 2013, so they were screwed out of money.

I can't believe there hasn't been an uproar across the board. I can't believe how dismissive a lot of people are on this UNC scandal. Obviously, ESPN isn't going to push for a UNC penalty, but why wouldn't UConn for example or other schools be relentlessly pushing this story. Memphis has had a couple of vacated Final Fours for half-baked reasons... why doesn't Memphis flip out about this UNC thing?

To me, UNC's titles in 2005 and 2009 should be vacated, at a minimum.

(04-05-2017 11:38 AM)JRsec Wrote:  This is what happens when the making and practice of law no longer involves common sense, but rather intentionally built in loop holes and lack of specificity. But it is profitable for the legal system and those who can afford it. But publicly when legality no longer corresponds with common sense the people recognize it all as hypocrisy.

Agree.

(04-05-2017 08:49 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  At this point in time, the NCAA - and the universities and athletic programs it is responsible for overseeing - has become too large and too vast to be an efficient governing body. Football and basketball will always be the top sports, but there are so many sports and athletic teams in Division 1 that it is impossible for them to responsibly watch over.

I'm not sure what the appropriate answer is, but I would think that allowing conferences to govern themselves and give oversight would be a step in the right direction. Watching over 10, 12 or 14 athletic programs is a lot easier than watching over and policing 250.

Golden, what you've written implies that the NCAA wanted to punish UNC but they're just incapable due to having too big a workload. But really, it's that the NCAA never had any intention of punishing UNC at all, ever. Nothing to do with their workload.

At this point, UNC is running out the clock... the scandal broke in what, 2013 or something? ESPN, UNC and their supporters are going to argue that it's so long ago, and everyone needs to move on. Absolutely ridiculous.

(04-05-2017 12:34 PM)billyjack Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 08:49 AM)GoldenWarrior11 Wrote:  At this point in time, the NCAA - and the universities and athletic programs it is responsible for overseeing - has become too large and too vast to be an efficient governing body. Football and basketball will always be the top sports, but there are so many sports and athletic teams in Division 1 that it is impossible for them to responsibly watch over.

I'm not sure what the appropriate answer is, but I would think that allowing conferences to govern themselves and give oversight would be a step in the right direction. Watching over 10, 12 or 14 athletic programs is a lot easier than watching over and policing 250.

Golden, what you've written implies that the NCAA wanted to punish UNC but they're just incapable due to having too big a workload. But really, it's that the NCAA never had any intention of punishing UNC at all, ever. Nothing to do with their workload.

At this point, UNC is running out the clock... the scandal broke in what, 2013 or something? ESPN, UNC and their supporters are going to argue that it's so long ago, and everyone needs to move on. Absolutely ridiculous.

True. I don't think the NCAA had any intention of ever penalizing UNC.

(04-05-2017 11:16 AM)Captain Bearcat Wrote:  

(04-05-2017 08:28 AM)arkstfan Wrote:  UNC's issue is that the NCAA never really thought to adopt rules that would address something like fake classes.
Story is that during one meeting an attorney for UNC slid the NCAA rulebook across the table and challenged the NCAA representatives to cite the rule that gave the NCAA jurisdiction over the academic issues.

The body with the real jurisdiction is the accrediting body but they have a terrible toolbox. Their punishments available are basically close the school or a sternly written letter with nothing in-between.

That doesn't matter. We live in a common law system. If you're not following the spirit of the contract, they can punish you for it and in some cases it will still be upheld in court. I'd say this is one of those cases - the NCAA says that the athletes must be students who pass their classes, so it's implied that those classes have to be bona fide college classes.

If you want a system where every conceivable scenario has to be spelled out in the contract, then you need to go to a civil law system like France or most of South America.

Actually it does matter.
The point of a contract is to set the terms of the relationship and unless the agreement specifies otherwise only the specific terms govern the relationship with the exception being when a statute requires other conditions.

Discovery in the Penn State case revealed the NCAA bluffed and knew they had no basis to sanction Penn State, it just happened with all the bombs falling, Penn State was willing to agree rather than call the NCAA on the bluff.