Interesting response by UNC yesterday to the NCAA's notice of allegations.
https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf
Basic facts in UNC view:
- NCAA has no standing here - it is an academic issue.
- Less than 30% of "course enrollments" were active athletes (27.2%)
- UNC had AFAM courses that were easy (write a 25 page paper). Every class required work. Athletes and frats and other networks found these easy classes
- 28 other universities have athletics-administered classes - not UNC. Michigan & Auburn cases far worse, but NCAA determined no violations in those instances
-NCAA internal emails show they determined there were no violations, then later tried to hide these emails. UNC discovered these emails years later
-NCAA has continually changed the allegations and theory of how these "easy" classes could have violated NCAA bylaws. Reason - they dont.
- UNC agrees that the women's basketball academic person (Jan Boxill) was trying to steer girls to these easy classes
Lots more detail in the report - in reading it and the NCAA allegations, I get that UNC offered easy classes as independent studies and almost 30% were athletes, more than the 3-4% athletes in the school. Even if so, how can the NCAA punish them for not overseeing their academic department sufficiently. to me it makes sense that 1)AFAM courses would have higher % athletes and 2)frats and athletes would find the easy courses and take them.
https://carolinacommitment.unc.edu/files/2017/05/UNC-Response-to-2016-2nd-Amended-NOA-1.pdf
Basic facts in UNC view:
- NCAA has no standing here - it is an academic issue.
- Less than 30% of "course enrollments" were active athletes (27.2%)
- UNC had AFAM courses that were easy (write a 25 page paper). Every class required work. Athletes and frats and other networks found these easy classes
- 28 other universities have athletics-administered classes - not UNC. Michigan & Auburn cases far worse, but NCAA determined no violations in those instances
-NCAA internal emails show they determined there were no violations, then later tried to hide these emails. UNC discovered these emails years later
-NCAA has continually changed the allegations and theory of how these "easy" classes could have violated NCAA bylaws. Reason - they dont.
- UNC agrees that the women's basketball academic person (Jan Boxill) was trying to steer girls to these easy classes
Lots more detail in the report - in reading it and the NCAA allegations, I get that UNC offered easy classes as independent studies and almost 30% were athletes, more than the 3-4% athletes in the school. Even if so, how can the NCAA punish them for not overseeing their academic department sufficiently. to me it makes sense that 1)AFAM courses would have higher % athletes and 2)frats and athletes would find the easy courses and take them.
