How hard will (should) the ncaa slam the Tar Heels for academic cheating
- Thread starter 12375CAT
- Start date
It wasn't only athletes taking the classes so Im not sure what is in the NCAA bylaws that would allow them to punish UNC but that really didn't stop them from punishing Penn State so who knows. The big deal is going to be their accreditors.
You had teachers cheating for students. Multiple sports. That's clearly lack of institutional control. Should get 2 years post season ban for all sports involved.
This. The only thing I do know is that the NCAA has sooooo little power that it is sad. They are more like a bank. Without the ability to even charge you late fees. But they sure cash in and talk about how bad cheating is.....and tisk, tisk you all the way to their safe deposit box.
Should face severe scholarship restrictions for three or four years too. It needs to hurt.
No doubt there was academic fraud going on but a majority of the students who took these classes were not student athletes. It was something like 60/40 which when compared to the percentage of other classes is very heavy on the student athlete side.
The problem is there is nothing in the NCAA bylaws about the quality or content of academic coursework. The only thing you could get them on if it was something only offered to student athletes then it could be considered an impermissible benefit. However in this case there were more regular students who took the courses than student athletes.
I'm not saying UNC did this, but here's the typical scenario:
Schools set up spurious majors that don't prepare you for anything, but that have required classes in topics that are equally bogus. Students who are paying for their own education wouldn't take those majors, generally. Few would even take the classes, except out of desperation (since it fits their schedule, and plenty of seats are available). Athletes who have no business taking college courses (i.e., brain-damaged jocks) are then shepherded into these majors. Some losers join the jocks -- or even a majority in a school with a large enrollment and few slots in "real" majors -- but it adds no credibility. It's still a charade meant to keep these quasi-employees on the roster.
I would venture to say this happens at every power 5 conference school, outside of the likes of Stanford, Northwestern, etc. Not saying that every athlete at every P5 school is in these majors, but the option is definitely there. I know D2 football is different, but at my little D2 college, there are a ton of athletes that are "kinesiology" majors that take a lot of the same classes at the same time. I'm not saying they don't do work, but I'm guessing that some of it isn't as strenuous as say a chemistry degree or accounting degree or something like that
A university is about researching the universe, and educating on the basis of that research. So I agree that anthropology, psychology, linguistics, social work, etc. are valid and worthwhile pursuits. In certain fields (PT, nursing, etc.), kinesiology is relevant, too.
However, the "needs" of athletics departments should have nothing, nil, nada, zilch to do with setting the scope of enquiry of academic departments.
In some ways, college athletics was much better in the mid- to late-1800s.
However, the "needs" of athletics departments should have nothing, nil, nada, zilch to do with setting the scope of enquiry of academic departments.
In some ways, college athletics was much better in the mid- to late-1800s.
