UNC athletes participate in decades long academic fraud

And shame on them for failing those athletes who are probably now destitute and without a job as a result of their lack of education.  What a joke!

Of course UNC was the only college in the country to do this. And no one is doing this now. Anyone want to buy some real estate in south central Florida?

Haha, exactly.

College "amateur" athletics is always a fun joke.

The ACC rumor mill  has been preaching this sermon for several years...going so far as to call UNC "UNCHEAT".   Certainly things happen elsewhere but the rumor for quite a few years has been that UNC took it to a whole new level. Son of a gun, the rumors were true.

No doubt true, but look at Todd Gurley & Famous Jamous! Also, Stephen Garcia coming out and say they all do the signings for money. The need to just have a minor league system.

The only thing funnier than "amateur" athletics are the "contact hours" that coaches are "limited" to in these sports. Oh you bet they aren't exceeding practice hours, yes sir Mister Compliance Officer sir!

Ummm....the report concluded that none of the coaches knew it was a "sham" class, though some knew they were "easy" classes.  Read the report, rather than summaries.

http://3qh929iorux3fdpl532k03k...UNC-FINAL-REPORT.pdf

Moreover, even the very best academic institutions have "easy" classes, that are disproportionately attended by athletes...For example, Stanford:

http://www.stanforddaily.com/2011/03/09/1046687/

As Kyle said, it's obviously widespread.   If you expect a "student athlete" to travel and work at a sport for 40 hours a week, even good students won't do as well.  But when you accept marginal students because they are great at a sport, it's obviously going to be a problem.

Specifically regarding the UNC baseball program, the UNC Baseball team was specifically listed as not being involved with this, because they stressed taking courses that required attendance rather than just independent study/paper submission. 

e. Baseball Personnel

The baseball coaches similarly professed little knowledge about the AFAM paper classes, although two baseball players told us that the paper classes were common knowledge among their teammates. Head Baseball Coach Mike Fox explained that he had no knowledge of the paper classes or any other course that was designed to keep student-athletes eligible. Fox knew that Chapel Hill offered independent studies, but he discouraged his players from taking them, preferring that his players physically attend class. Fox stated, and his assistant coaches and former players confirmed, that he places an emphasis on academics and would bench his athletes if he learned that

they were not attending class. Assistant Baseball Coach Scott Forbes explained that the team has a strict class attendance policy, and it is well known in the baseball program that if you do not go to class, you do not play. Forbes claimed that he was generally aware of what classes his players were taking, although he did not recall any student-athletes taking AFAM courses.

Shocked, shocked to find out big time athletics has corrupted another bastion of higher education!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjbPi00k_ME

Mcloven - I have no idea what happeneded or didn't happen with the baseball team.

But, I found the entire explanation about baseball disingenuous. First, I don't see how a coach who took over a job in 1999 can speak with any degree of knowledge on the previous decade. Second, I do note that based upon what you posted, ignorance ("professing little knowledge about the AFAM paper classes") is way different then denials. Third, It is further noted that "two baseball players" said the existence of the classes was common knowledge. The HC "discouraged" players from "taking them" - a far cry from a prohibition. While he benched players for skipping class, independent studies do not require attendence. While a general "awareness" of what classes players were taking (by an assistant coach) was professed, no specific denial about the sham classes was offered.

I have learned that when the best evidence on an issue is not offered, it's because the best evidence fails to support that position. In this case, the best evidence would be a data analysis of the players transcripts - not vague ambigious recollections from coaches who weren't even employed at the time. (No privacy issues in doing such an analysis.) 

i do do not blame any athletes. I know my son was very aware of the classes which allegedly were cake walks ("rocks for jocks" - astronomy - comes to mind [which he took]). I do know that on most of the OVs he went on, the class schedules of each player was provided. Those programs had their fingers on the academic pulse of each player. There is no such evidence in the ambigious statements coming from UNC.

Over an eighteen year period 1500 athletes took these "classes." Half were football players; and I'm sure many were basketball players. These teams do not operate in a vacuum; athletes tend to know each other; kids will be kids and when an apparently sanctioned avenue to boosting GPA is open, they will occasionally take it. This is a massive failure of the adults who "own" these kids and should be mentors.

A further reminder that even though these athletes sometimes tower over their parents, grow huge beards, and appear to be fully formed adults, their parents should always keep their fingers on their kids academic pulse - no one else can be expected to do that.

http://northcarolina.scout.com...ls-afam-fallout?s=78

Walden told investigators that he could not recall telling Roy Williams or assistant Joe Holladay about the classes. Both of the coaches said they had not been told about the paper class scheme.

“Some people also thought that individuals such as our current coaches might have been involved, but his investigation shows they were not,” Folt said.

Wainstein told reporters the coaches had credible answers to his questions that made sense and he also emphasized that there were other easy classes on campus.

“I had no reason to disbelieve them based on the evidence that I had,” Wainstein said.

Williams inherited a team in 2003-04 with five players in AFAM majors. That level of clustering made him uncomfortable because it appeared as though the players were being steered to the major, according to the report.

He later issued a directive to Holladay to make sure that ASPSA counselors were not steering players to AFAM.

“Those actions are inconsistent with being complicit or really trying to promote that scheme,” Wainstein said.

Coaches are discouraged from talking to academics/professors by NCAA rules for fear of being viewed as providing "pressure" on professors.  So, it's entirely plausible that coaches didn't know the full extent of these "fake" grades as they've said.

http://www.mlive.com/spartans/...idening_gap_bet.html

-- After being in constant contact with professors in his early years at Michigan State as an assistant, Izzo said he now can’t initiate conversations with professors about his players’ academic performance.

“If I see them on the street or at the grocery store, otherwise I’m afraid to,” Izzo said. “That sounds a little ridiculous and a little venom to it, but I’m telling you the truth. I do not like the way we’ve done it, personally.”

The reason for the separation between coaches and professors is that administrators fear coaches will apply pressure to make their players eligible. Izzo said that fear is unfounded.

No problem! Just attach the word optional in front of the workout. Then, as a player try missing optional workouts and see what happens.

I don't believe for a second coaches didn't know what was going on. How often do coaches deny situations until the proof is in front of their face and they are in danger of being fired? Answer; almost all the time.

When a kid is dumber than a bag of rocks you can tell. A kid like this getting A's and B's should be a red flag something is up.

On another note when I was in college athletes were given a list of athlete friendly courses and professors. I took Urban Studies 101 aka A's In The Hood. I had a visiting professor who didn't know it was an athlete's gut course. I think I went into shock at the midterm when we were given three blue books each for answering the questions. The course was known for multiple choice tests. Then I saw the essay questions and went into complete shock and warm sweat. I BS'ed my way to a D on the mid term. The second half of the semester this course took up more study time than any other course. I had to get an A on the final to get a C+ for the term. It was my only C in college.

You don't have to believe it.  But the guy who conducted the independent investigation's background includes being the first assistant attorney general of homeland security, general counsel to the FBI and a US district attorney...and he believed they did not know what was going on (my guess is he's dealt with some good liars in the past and dismantled them). http://www.cadwalader.com/prof...ls/kenneth-wainstein

Not to necessarily defend baseball, but college baseball is almost always exempt from these kinds of shenanigans. The best of the best players end up in the first few rounds of the draft, with only the holdouts and injury cases coming to college. As a result, very little cloak and dagger recruiting happens. And once on campus, the NCAA knows they have to crack down on SOME athletics, but they obviously can't do it to basketball or football since they are the moneymakers. So baseball gets the short end of the stick of compliance and is often grade audited on a regular basis.

Doesn't mean it's fair, but it's how it often is at 95%+ of the schools.

i believe that the guy who conducted the investigation has an impressive resume.

I KNOW from the report that over 1500 athletes took these sham courses (which I differentiate from "easy classes"). I KNOW from the report that 22 current and former athletes were interviewed - of which 17 were actually current students (well after the scheme in its form ended). I KNOW from the report that at least one baseball player took about one sham class per semester (therefore debunking the halo placed over the baseball program). I KNOW from the report that the overwhelming majority (over 99%) of athletes (who would have percipient knowledge) were not interviewed; and that if an attempt had been made to reach out to these percipient witnesses it would have been noted in the report. If you don't interview the people with actual knowledge, it's pretty easy to believe people who have incentives to "not recollect."

I believe, from experience (and from cases such as General Motors and ignition switches) that impressive reports can intentionally mask important details (call it legal sleight of hand) while simultaneously appearing to be comprehensive. I believe that a concerted effort - from the university and from alumni - was made to destroy the initial whistle blower.

I know there is a huge difference between the answer "I do not recollect" and "absolutely not." I know that in preparing witnesses for depositions, it is a cardinal rule to answer "I do not recollect" when asked questions for which a witness is unsure. I also know that the standard follow up question is something like "is there any thing which could refresh your recollection." I wonder why the transcripts of the kids (appropriately redacted for privacy) weren't used to "refresh the recollection." (Now, this wasn't a trial or pre-trial discovery so there would be no incentive to dig too deep.)

Also note that one focus of the analysis was how the sham courses impacted eligibility. This neatly sidestepped the issue of what education were these kids receiving in general - a point hardly made. These kids were screwed by their mentors with the active or passive connivence of their coaches, academic advisors, and tutors. 

Independent studies is not a "sham" class per se.  Every single school has them.

The "sham" was some of these students turning in substandard work and getting a better grades than he or she should have.  Just because an athlete or ordinary student took an independent study course, doesn't mean he or she just turned in junk and got a great grade.  Some students turned in junk and got good grades.  Other students turned in excellent, well-researched work and got great grades.  In any event, it's not the class that's a sham, it's the standard that some of these papers were held to that's the sham.  There is no evidence that 3,000 students turned in crappy papers to get great grades...just that that number of students took that class over the years.  In any event, it's clearly NOT the way things should operate and is not defensible..

The comment about the whistleblower being thrown under the bus...  She clearly made-up facts or misled people or just was plain wrong--the original basis for her story was at least off by at least a factor of 10.  It's been documented here (her original story that CNN ran with was that 60% of athletes read at a 4th to 8th grade level...which was debunked):  http://www.universityherald.co...ial-study-flawed.htm   The school is allowed to protect itself and clear up any untrue stories.  The school did not say that these independent study courses didn't exist.  And if you think these marginal students only had offers from UNC, and not from pretty much every D1 athletically competitive school (including Duke, UVA, etc.), well, that just nuts.  These students get admitted somewhere...some went elsewhere and were sociology majors at Duke:

http://www.wral.com/news/local/story/101227/

  http://www.dukechronicle.com/a...-condemns-espn-shows

The system is pretty broken...probably much less so for baseball due to a viable minor league system (if you're a great baseball player in HS and not interested in academics, you have the real option of not going to school, not so much in football or basketball). 

"Through this scheme, over 3,100 students received one or more semesters of deficient instruction and were awarded high grades that often had little relationship to the quality of their work." (Note: 3,100 students - not 3,100 courses. The baseball player referenced in the report took multiple courses; he was counted under the explained methodology as ONE.)

As for the "debunking" of the whistle blower, the article you linked reveals the flimsy evidence upon which the university relies. The outside expert's conclusions were based upon information the university provided - he was not given unfettered access. Essentially, the university created and controlled the data he reviewed - with an incentive to push in a particular direction. Garbage in, garbage out. 

Thanks for for the link to the report - I actually find it more disturbing then the news reports.