News Quick update and revision to history. In 2012, Bama (13-1) defeated Notre Dame (now 0-1) for the BCS NC. NCAA vacates 21 wins from ND.

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#1
N. Dame critical of NCAA after appeal denied

The NCAA has denied Notre Dame's appeal of a decision to vacate 21 victories because of academic misconduct, including all 12 wins from the school's 2012 national championship game run.

In a letter to Notre Dame alumni, University President Fr. John Jenkins criticized the decision, saying the penalty was unprecedented considering who was involved in the misconduct, and the school was being punished for rigorously enforcing its honor code.

"We are deeply disappointed by and strongly disagree with the denial of the University's appeal, announced today by the NCAA," Jenkins said in the letter.

"To impose a severe penalty for this retroactive ineligibility establishes a dangerous precedent and turns the seminal concept of academic autonomy on its head. At best, the NCAA's decision in this case creates a randomness of outcome based solely on how an institution chooses to define its honor code; at worst, it creates an incentive for colleges and universities to change their honor codes to avoid sanctions like that imposed here."

He called the ruling unfair, referencing the recent North Carolina case in which the NCAA did not punish the school after an investigation of athletes taking irregular courses.

Notre Dame agreed to accept certain NCAA findings and acknowledged cheating involving several football players and a student athletic trainer, but appealed only the penalty that vacated victories.

The NCAA stripped Notre Dame of 21 victories, fined the school $5,000 and placed the school on one years' probation in November 2016 after finding academic misconduct orchestrated by the trainer.

Notre Dame was the national runner-up during the 2012 season, losing to Alabama in the BCS title game and finishing with a 12-1 mark. The Irish went 9-4 in 2013.

"Student-to-student cheating is not normally within the NCAA's jurisdiction, but the NCAA concluded that the student's role as a part-time assistant trainer made her a 'representative of the institution' and justified a vacation of team records penalty in this case," Jenkins said in the letter.

"There is no precedent in previous NCAA cases for the decision to add a discretionary penalty of vacation of team records in a case of student-to-student cheating involving a part-time student worker who had no role in academic advising."

The NCAA said the trainer was employed by the athletic department from fall 2009 through the spring of 2013 and "partially or wholly completed numerous academic assignments for football student-athletes in numerous courses" from 2011 into 2013. It said she did substantial coursework for two players and gave impermissible help to six others in 18 courses over two academic years.

The NCAA said the woman "continued to provide impermissible academic benefits to football student-athletes for a full year after she graduated" and was in her first year of law school elsewhere.

In all, the NCAA said, three athletes wound up playing while ineligible during the 2012 and 2013 seasons.

In his letter, Jenkins said the players were retroactively declared ineligible after Notre Dame investigated the misconduct in 2014 and recalculated the students' grades. Jenkins said had Notre Dame merely expelled the students instead of recalculating grades, had a statute of limitations for past offenses or chose not to punish the students, an NCAA penalty would not have been imposed.

The vacation of victories was a discretionary penalty. Notre Dame objected to the penalty, noting all previous NCAA academic misconduct cases that resulted in victories being vacated involved an administrator, coach or person who served in an academic role.

"This is more disturbing given that, in 2016, the member institutions of the NCAA amended the academic misconduct rules to make clear that students who serve in roles identical to the student in our case would not be considered institutional representatives," Jenkins wrote.

Jenkins didn't name the North Carolina case but referred to a "recent high profile academic misconduct case in which the NCAA Committee on Infractions chair explained that even though certain classes 'more likely than not' were used to keep athletes eligible with fraudulent credits, the legitimacy of those classes was beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA's enforcement process precisely because that question must be left to the determination of the university in the exercise of its academic autonomy.

"The notion that a university's exercise of academic autonomy can under NCAA rules lead to exoneration -- or to a severe penalty -- without regard to the way it which it is used defies logic and any notion of fundamental fairness," Jenkins wrote.
 

uagrad93

Jack of all trades!!
HARRY'S
#4
SMDH at the NC2A! I hate ND as much as the next person, but how is the punishment fair or consistent considering the scope of UNC and ND? A freaking basketball program over how many years of academic fraud versus 3 players over 2 seasons! I don't understand!!
 

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#5
In his letter, Jenkins said the players were retroactively declared ineligible after Notre Dame investigated the misconduct in 2014 and recalculated the students' grades. Jenkins said had Notre Dame merely expelled the students instead of recalculating grades, had a statute of limitations for past offenses or chose not to punish the students, an NCAA penalty would not have been imposed.
And this was the decision after the appeal? I don't care for ND but the arbitrariness of this judgment is off the charts.
I don't get the arbitrary analogy. ND admits they cheated, admits is was a student-trainer that helped, and declared the kids ineligible. That's Notre Dame declaring its own player ineligible, not the NCAA. How is it arbitrary for a school to have to vacate a win when they played an ineligible player?
One thing that jumps out to me is where Jenkins says "if they'd have expelled them there wouldn't have been any penalty imposed." I don't buy that at all. They were still ineligible. But, what strikes me about that statement to an even greater degree is ND's honor code and how schools expel kids for cheating. It seems to simply declare them ineligible is a benefit we wouldn't see given to your average Joe (since it's ND I guess it would be Joseph) receive as a student at ND if he'd been caught cheating.

All that said...I still find it confusing how they (NCAA) said that academics weren't their area when they were looking at Tennessee a few years ago and then we see the APR guidelines along with stories like UNC, and now Notre Dame.
 

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#6
SMDH at the NC2A! I hate ND as much as the next person, but how is the punishment fair or consistent considering the scope of UNC and ND? A freaking basketball program over how many years of academic fraud versus 3 players over 2 seasons! I don't understand!!
Student trainer. That's the difference.
 

TUSKstuff

Riding The Wave
#7
I don't get the arbitrary analogy. ND admits they cheated, admits is was a student-trainer that helped, and declared the kids ineligible. That's Notre Dame declaring its own player ineligible, not the NCAA. How is it arbitrary for a school to have to vacate a win when they played an ineligible player?
One thing that jumps out to me is where Jenkins says "if they'd have expelled them there wouldn't have been any penalty imposed." I don't buy that at all. They were still ineligible. But, what strikes me about that statement to an even greater degree is ND's honor code and how schools expel kids for cheating. It seems to simply declare them ineligible is a benefit we wouldn't see given to your average Joe (since it's ND I guess it would be Joseph) receive as a student at ND if he'd been caught cheating.

All that said...I still find it confusing how they (NCAA) said that academics weren't their area when they were looking at Tennessee a few years ago and then we see the APR guidelines along with stories like UNC, and now Notre Dame.

You did a pretty good job of making my case. The NCAA's inconsistencies in judgment from one University to another creates an unfairness that can only be explained as arbitrary. Has there ever been a more systematic determination to cheat then the corrupt academic bunch up their in Chapel Hill? What's the answer, the Tarheels have no standard so there is no accountability? The only thing ND did wrong was failing to appeal the entire process instead of just the vacated wins.
 

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#8
You did a pretty good job of making my case. The NCAA's inconsistencies in judgment from one University to another creates an unfairness that can only be explained as arbitrary. Has there ever been a more systematic determination to cheat then the corrupt academic bunch up their in Chapel Hill? What's the answer, the Tarheels have no standard so there is no accountability? The only thing ND did wrong was failing to appeal the entire process instead of just the vacated wins.
Two different scenarios. With Notre Dame you've got an employee of the athletic department that's helping kids cheat. ND admitted such and even went to the point of declaring the player ineligible for those games. The only thing they appealed was the vacation of the games. They didn't appeal their probation or any of the other sanctions. It's a case of ND saying "we're wrong but we don't like your punishment."

On the other hand, UNC has classes questioned and since it was proven that it wasn't only student-athletes taking those classes the NCAA didn't have a case. They were charged with providing athletes "benefits" that included those classes. But, it wasn't a violation because others took the classes as well. If anything, UNC should be facing SACS.
 

TUSKstuff

Riding The Wave
#9
Two different scenarios. With Notre Dame you've got an employee of the athletic department that's helping kids cheat. ND admitted such and even went to the point of declaring the player ineligible for those games. The only thing they appealed was the vacation of the games. They didn't appeal their probation or any of the other sanctions. It's a case of ND saying "we're wrong but we don't like your punishment."

On the other hand, UNC has classes questioned and since it was proven that it wasn't only student-athletes taking those classes the NCAA didn't have a case. They were charged with providing athletes "benefits" that included those classes. But, it wasn't a violation because others took the classes as well. If anything, UNC should be facing SACS.

On the one hand, you have an employee of the AD at ND that's helping the kids to cheat. Whereas in NC you have the entire educational system helping the athletes and students to cheat, so they are innocent. Well, that's logical. The fact that NC's argument was that we made the bogus, fake, phony and phantom classes available to the student body is an indictment of the NCAA bylaws and backbone. The fact the NCAA didn't have the integrity to call these classes corrupt and just a way to keep players eligible is on them. A cheat by any other name is still a cheat.

Why would I limit myself to stand on the same flimsy, every changing, arbitrary bylaws that Greg Sankey declared in his judgment? Why would you?
 

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#12
Why would I limit myself to stand on the same flimsy, every changing, arbitrary bylaws that Greg Sankey declared in his judgment? Why would you?
First of all the bylaws about student athletes being able to receive things others students can not has long been established. It's neither "ever changing" or "arbitrary." I know I've beaten this horse to death more than a few times but UNC was correct on this one. They didn't violate any NCAA regulations.

I'd stand on the by-laws of the NCAA as my defense every freakin' day if I was in the same situation. Sankey, as the mouthpiece for the committee, doesn't really deserve any criticism here.
 

TUSKstuff

Riding The Wave
#13
First of all the bylaws about student athletes being able to receive things others students can not has long been established. It's neither "ever changing" or "arbitrary." I know I've beaten this horse to death more than a few times but UNC was correct on this one. They didn't violate any NCAA regulations.

I'd stand on the by-laws of the NCAA as my defense every freakin' day if I was in the same situation. Sankey, as the mouthpiece for the committee, doesn't really deserve any criticism here.

Good for you Terry. And in case you missed my last point:

Why would I limit myself to stand on the same flimsy, every changing, arbitrary bylaws that Greg Sankey declared in his judgment?
 

TerryP

Waltersobchakeit
ADMINISTRATION
#14
Good for you Terry. And in case you missed my last point:
I got your last point. Hence the reply.

I'll bet you'd do the same thing UNC did if you were in their shoes. UNC had the NCAA by the balls on that one. It certainly can be argued that what they were doing with those classes wasn't right just like it can be stated it was the correct stance UNC took.
 

TUSKstuff

Riding The Wave
#16
I got your last point. Hence the reply.

I'll bet you'd do the same thing UNC did if you were in their shoes. UNC had the NCAA by the balls on that one. It certainly can be argued that what they were doing with those classes wasn't right just like it can be stated it was the correct stance UNC took.

At least you framed this argument correctly. No point in putting the NCAA judgment anywhere near what was actually right or wrong. The NCAA's balls have been squeezed numerous times, from NC to Miami to the barn. No tears shed for anyone, they're often as corrupt as the institutions they investigate. Feet of clay. That doesn't make me sad or mad, it just means I pick my own heroes.
 

Bamabww

Bench Warmer
HARRY'S
#19
Pretty good read on the season that never happened:

Vacating wins is a funny business. I don’t want to get too graphic, but I’ve always likened it to vomiting: Your stomach is empty, yes, but you still ate lunch. Similarly, the results are wiped from the record books, but we all saw the games.

Love Notre Dame or hate it—and there’s not much of an in-between, is there?—you remember the 2012 season for its action and its absurdity, with the Irish in the center of it all. Now, according to the NCAA, there’s a golden dome–shaped void in the story of that year in college football. On Tuesday Notre Dame lost its appeal of a 2016 ruling to vacate the Irish’s wins in 2012 and 2013 as the result of academic misconduct findings that allowed ineligible players to play during those two seasons. The Irish are now 0–1 in ’12, the sole mark in that year’s win-loss column a 42–14 beatdown at the hands of Alabama in the national title game. The memories of that game in South Bend are almost certainly more graphic than the aforementioned retching.

For Notre Dame, keeping that game on the books may be punishment enough.
 
#20
Somewhere a long the line...vacating wins strikes me as absurd...
Really....if wins...and the games themselves are vacated...shouldnt the money people spent be refunded...????....
Leave the win- loss total alone...vacate titles...make the school refund ALL championship game money and bowl money...
I had an absurd moment one day.....make the school pay a fine to each school they played.....the cost os tickets sold....so if ND and Purdue played...NCAA says ND had illegal players...instead of vacatng win...ND sells 70000 tickets at 100 each...ND has to pay the fine to Purdue of 7 mill... giving ur opponents the money might make them think twice. ( probably not...but)... never happen...just keep on keeping on...