RebKell's Junkie Boards
Board Junkies Forums
 
Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index

Sylvia's contract not extended.
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 1:29 pm    ::: Sylvia's contract not extended. Reply Reply with quote

but Roy's is.

http://www.heraldsun.com/news/showcase/x110777804/Lack-of-new-deal-for-UNCs-Hatchell-angers-supporters

Info feel more and more that the women's program is the sacrificial lamb.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 1:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why is it a sacraficial lamb? There were major violations involving WBB described in detail in the report. Whatever happens seems well deserved.


readyAIMfire53



Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 7355
Location: Durham, NC


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 3:56 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Why is it a sacraficial lamb? There were major violations involving WBB described in detail in the report. Whatever happens seems well deserved.


You don't see any contradiction in this? Players on both the men's and women's teams participated in these fake classes. Why was the men's coach extended and the women's coach not extended? And if anyone thinks I'm a fan of Sylvia Hatchell, then they are clearly ignorant.



_________________
Follow your passion and your life will be true down to your core.

~rAf
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 5:47 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

readyAIMfire53 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
Why is it a sacraficial lamb? There were major violations involving WBB described in detail in the report. Whatever happens seems well deserved.


You don't see any contradiction in this? Players on both the men's and women's teams participated in these fake classes. Why was the men's coach extended and the women's coach not extended? And if anyone thinks I'm a fan of Sylvia Hatchell, then they are clearly ignorant.


First, I expect the men's team to get hammered too.

Second, there was a lot more specific evidence, not only of steering to fake classes, but outright fixing of grades, with respect to the women's team, so no I don't see a contradiction if the responses are different.

It seems that the woman who was Hatchell' s "academic advisor" was one of the biggest villains.

And more aybe they were already unhappy with Hatchell anyhow and this just pushed it over the edge.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 5:54 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't know that I'd call the women's program the sacrificial lamb in the usual sense (in that it looks like there's guilt there), but I think it's fair to say that Hatchell doesn't have as much pull as Williams and is likelier to be fired for it. (And, realistically, she hasn't produced as much as she did a decade ago.)

Also keep in mind that she was there from the beginning of the fake grades thing - it's been going on for 18 years - while Williams was not, and so may be in a better position to say he didn't really know what was happening. (Not speaking to whether that would be true, just that he has a slightly better level of plausible deniability than she does.) In fact, the report generally treats Williams better than Hatchell and - tellingly - says that MBB players stopped "taking" these classes well before the scandal broke, while the WBB players kept it up.


Happycappie25



Joined: 07 Feb 2006
Posts: 4174
Location: QUEENS!!!!


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/03/15 6:14 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
I don't know that I'd call the women's program the sacrificial lamb in the usual sense (in that it looks like there's guilt there), but I think it's fair to say that Hatchell doesn't have as much pull as Williams and is likelier to be fired for it. (And, realistically, she hasn't produced as much as she did a decade ago.)

Also keep in mind that she was there from the beginning of the fake grades thing - it's been going on for 18 years - while Williams was not, and so may be in a better position to say he didn't really know what was happening. (Not speaking to whether that would be true, just that he has a slightly better level of plausible deniability than she does.) In fact, the report generally treats Williams better than Hatchell and - tellingly - says that MBB players stopped "taking" these classes well before the scandal broke, while the WBB players kept it up.


THIS

UNCWBB has to take the bulk of the accountability, that being said MBB and FB are NOT innocent and need to also be punished (although to be fair FB was punished prior over similar issues that led to the more widespread fraud discovery)

UNCWBB is not a scapegoat in that sense, but if they get 80 90 100% of the punishment then they would be. thats what bears watching

I wouldnt renew hatchell either (i wouldnt have renewed Roy either to be fair) she hasn't gotten results and lost the class she was banking on



_________________
"Leave it to the NCAA women's basketball committee to turn a glass slipper into glass ceiling" Graham Hays
Davis4632



Joined: 14 Jul 2014
Posts: 861



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/13/15 10:21 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Former UNC center and BC coach Sylvia Crawley is UNC's new assistant coach replacing Ivory Latta.


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1881
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/14/15 3:45 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

UNC's FB program was disciplined more due to impermissible benefits from agents and improper associations between assistant coaches (Black Santa) and sports agents/agencies. There were a degree of academic impropriety involving tutors doing course work for players, but the majority of the punishments stemmed from the agent activities, if I remember correctly....


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/14/15 11:44 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

beknighted wrote:
In fact, the report generally treats Williams better than Hatchell and - tellingly - says that MBB players stopped "taking" these classes well before the scandal broke, while the WBB players kept it up.

Tres interesting. I didn't go anywhere NEAR the report, so I'm taking you'ns' word for it. Sylvia will always have her place in the history of 'our' game and UNC, but it may be a bit tarnished now. And, iconic or not, I can see UNC parting ways with her--like Andy at GA, it may be "time".



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
NoDakSt



Joined: 26 Oct 2005
Posts: 4929



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/15/15 8:24 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:
beknighted wrote:
In fact, the report generally treats Williams better than Hatchell and - tellingly - says that MBB players stopped "taking" these classes well before the scandal broke, while the WBB players kept it up.

Tres interesting. I didn't go anywhere NEAR the report, so I'm taking you'ns' word for it. Sylvia will always have her place in the history of 'our' game and UNC, but it may be a bit tarnished now. And, iconic or not, I can see UNC parting ways with her--like Andy at GA, it may be "time".


Do you think that is why they're bringing in Crawley at this time? To transition to their next coach?


goforit77



Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/15/15 7:18 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

NoDakSt wrote:
Howee wrote:
beknighted wrote:
In fact, the report generally treats Williams better than Hatchell and - tellingly - says that MBB players stopped "taking" these classes well before the scandal broke, while the WBB players kept it up.

Tres interesting. I didn't go anywhere NEAR the report, so I'm taking you'ns' word for it. Sylvia will always have her place in the history of 'our' game and UNC, but it may be a bit tarnished now. And, iconic or not, I can see UNC parting ways with her--like Andy at GA, it may be "time".


Do you think that is why they're bringing in Crawley at this time? To transition to their next coach?


Charlotte Smith is the Coach in Waiting fr UNC


Nixtreefan



Joined: 14 Nov 2012
Posts: 2539



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/15 1:41 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Why do you think that?


Conway Gamecock



Joined: 23 Jan 2015
Posts: 1881
Location: Here


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/15 4:04 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Pretty tough deal for Sylvia....typically at the highest levels, when you refuse to extend the HC's contract that can adversely impact that HC's ability to recruit at the highest levels. It places concern and doubt as to the HC's longevity at the certain program, and whether or not her employers have confidence in her.

Therefore, competing top programs for those elite talent will use it against Hatchell, telling those prospects that if they choose UNC, they won't be playing for Hatchell their entire careers. The top prospects prefer stability in the programs that they choose, and typically establish relationships with those HCs and assistants. They don't like the prospect of suddenly having to play for coaches that they never talked to previously.

This is a huge blow to Hatchell's program moving forward, IMO....


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/15 5:51 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Pretty tough deal for Sylvia....typically at the highest levels, when you refuse to extend the HC's contract that can adversely impact that HC's ability to recruit at the highest levels. It places concern and doubt as to the HC's longevity at the certain program, and whether or not her employers have confidence in her.

Therefore, competing top programs for those elite talent will use it against Hatchell, telling those prospects that if they choose UNC, they won't be playing for Hatchell their entire careers. The top prospects prefer stability in the programs that they choose, and typically establish relationships with those HCs and assistants. They don't like the prospect of suddenly having to play for coaches that they never talked to previously.

This is a huge blow to Hatchell's program moving forward, IMO....


I suspect right now that's the least of the concerns in recruiting at UNC.


beknighted



Joined: 11 Nov 2004
Posts: 11050
Location: Lost in D.C.


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/17/15 8:46 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Conway Gamecock wrote:
Pretty tough deal for Sylvia....typically at the highest levels, when you refuse to extend the HC's contract that can adversely impact that HC's ability to recruit at the highest levels. It places concern and doubt as to the HC's longevity at the certain program, and whether or not her employers have confidence in her.

Therefore, competing top programs for those elite talent will use it against Hatchell, telling those prospects that if they choose UNC, they won't be playing for Hatchell their entire careers. The top prospects prefer stability in the programs that they choose, and typically establish relationships with those HCs and assistants. They don't like the prospect of suddenly having to play for coaches that they never talked to previously.

This is a huge blow to Hatchell's program moving forward, IMO....


It may be (although as Art points out, probably not the biggest recruiting problem there right now), but if the reports are remotely accurate, it's probably the best she could possibly expect.


cthskzfn



Joined: 21 Nov 2004
Posts: 12851
Location: In a world where a PSYCHOpath like Trump isn't potus.


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/15 9:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cheating aside, hatchell is one of the worst successful basketball coaches i've ever seen.



_________________
Silly, stupid white people might be waking up.
ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/15 10:10 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

cthskzfn wrote:
cheating aside, hatchell is one of the worst successful basketball coaches i've ever seen.


Very Happy Very Happy Very Happy


goforit77



Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/20/15 11:12 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Nixtreefan wrote:
Why do you think that?


I live in the area and its common knowledge among the wbb community.


goforit77



Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/23/15 7:29 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

The local take....Looks like SH is being made the scapegoat...She deserves to be treated better

http://www.newsobserver.com/opinion/op-ed/article27955738.html



http://chapelboro.com/columns/the-commentators/earth-to-art-chansky-it-wasnt-about-the-women/


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/23/15 1:22 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

I don't see how someone's a "scapegoat" when there is such hard evidence against them. These two op ed pieces certainly don't make the case. The first rests almost entirely upon "well MBB and football are 'in the report' too", but not everything "in the report" is in it to the same extent. There is actual documentary evidence not only of WBB steering players into fake classes, but of actual tampering with grades. I don't believe there is anything to the same extent or anything as well documented regarding the men's program.

The second article is a compilation of supposition and conspiracy theories, none of which to my knowledge have any evidentiary backing. The excuse for why there are a ton of emails for WBB and not for MBB is that the conversations regarding men's players were all oral, while Boxil was in a different building so had to communicate by email. Maybe, but that doesn't change that there is evidence for one, and not for the other. And then she writes that the men's emails were "expunged." Is that reported anywhere, or is that just another supposition by the author?

WBB has some well-documented, egregious violations. Whether or not Williams should have been fired too, nothing written in either of these pieces actually presents a defense for Hatchell. They're pissed Williams didn't get fired too, and maybe he should have been, but for whatever reason there seems to be a lot less evidence against him. Do I believe that MBB was up to its ass in this thing? Yeah, probably it was. But from the published reports there appears to be a significant difference in the actual evidence of violations.

I really don't see that Hatchell is a victim here.


goforit77



Joined: 09 Jan 2015
Posts: 123



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/23/15 3:23 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
I don't see how someone's a "scapegoat" when there is such hard evidence against them. These two op ed pieces certainly don't make the case. The first rests almost entirely upon "well MBB and football are 'in the report' too", but not everything "in the report" is in it to the same extent. There is actual documentary evidence not only of WBB steering players into fake classes, but of actual tampering with grades. I don't believe there is anything to the same extent or anything as well documented regarding the men's program.

The second article is a compilation of supposition and conspiracy theories, none of which to my knowledge have any evidentiary backing. The excuse for why there are a ton of emails for WBB and not for MBB is that the conversations regarding men's players were all oral, while Boxil was in a different building so had to communicate by email. Maybe, but that doesn't change that there is evidence for one, and not for the other. And then she writes that the men's emails were "expunged." Is that reported anywhere, or is that just another supposition by the author?

WBB has some well-documented, egregious violations. Whether or not Williams should have been fired too, nothing written in either of these pieces actually presents a defense for Hatchell. They're pissed Williams didn't get fired too, and maybe he should have been, but for whatever reason there seems to be a lot less evidence against him. Do I believe that MBB was up to its ass in this thing? Yeah, probably it was. But from the published reports there appears to be a significant difference in the actual evidence of violations.

I really don't see that Hatchell is a victim here.




The point is that UNC is usually untouchable and their actions unquestioned here in NC...Its just an echo of the sentiments beginning to boil up in Tar Heel country. The thought that UNC is using the WBB program to deflect from the mens issues is not lost on the fans here in NC.


ArtBest23



Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/23/15 10:39 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

goforit77 wrote:
ArtBest23 wrote:
I don't see how someone's a "scapegoat" when there is such hard evidence against them. These two op ed pieces certainly don't make the case. The first rests almost entirely upon "well MBB and football are 'in the report' too", but not everything "in the report" is in it to the same extent. There is actual documentary evidence not only of WBB steering players into fake classes, but of actual tampering with grades. I don't believe there is anything to the same extent or anything as well documented regarding the men's program.

The second article is a compilation of supposition and conspiracy theories, none of which to my knowledge have any evidentiary backing. The excuse for why there are a ton of emails for WBB and not for MBB is that the conversations regarding men's players were all oral, while Boxil was in a different building so had to communicate by email. Maybe, but that doesn't change that there is evidence for one, and not for the other. And then she writes that the men's emails were "expunged." Is that reported anywhere, or is that just another supposition by the author?

WBB has some well-documented, egregious violations. Whether or not Williams should have been fired too, nothing written in either of these pieces actually presents a defense for Hatchell. They're pissed Williams didn't get fired too, and maybe he should have been, but for whatever reason there seems to be a lot less evidence against him. Do I believe that MBB was up to its ass in this thing? Yeah, probably it was. But from the published reports there appears to be a significant difference in the actual evidence of violations.

I really don't see that Hatchell is a victim here.




The point is that UNC is usually untouchable and their actions unquestioned here in NC...Its just an echo of the sentiments beginning to boil up in Tar Heel country. The thought that UNC is using the WBB program to deflect from the mens issues is not lost on the fans here in NC.


Somehow I doubt if that's the prevailing view. An op ed by a former player is hardly representative.

Anyone questioning why WBB is suffering greater ramifications than MBB ought to read Wainstein's report and the NCAA Notice of Violations. While the NOV is replete with facts regarding WBB, Williams is barely mentioned. In light of the evidence, why in the world would anyone expect any different result?


CamrnCrz1974



Joined: 18 Nov 2004
Posts: 18371
Location: Phoenix


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/24/15 2:52 pm    ::: Reply Reply with quote

ArtBest23 wrote:
Anyone questioning why WBB is suffering greater ramifications than MBB ought to read Wainstein's report and the NCAA Notice of Violations. While the NOV is replete with facts regarding WBB, Williams is barely mentioned. In light of the evidence, why in the world would anyone expect any different result?


I posted this on another board back in mid-June, but here is my analysis of the UNC NOA, with some insider information from multiple sources:

1) The NOA was very specific with respect to Allegation #1 (impermissible benefits to student-athletes from 2002 until 2011). This is being done to protect the legacy of legendary (and recently departed) UNC Coach Dean Smith. The Wainstein report and exhibits demonstrate that this systemic academic scandal actually began in 1993, when Dean Smith was still the head coach. Putting aside the evidence, though, if you think about what happened in 1991 and 1992, it also makes sense as to why this began in 1993 (Duke was coming off back-to-back NCAA Championships, and Coach K had just passed Dean Smith in terms of NCAA titles).

If you read Allegation #5, you see the systemic nature of the academic scandal covering 18 years and emphasizing football, men's basketball, and women's basketball.

2) Allegation #2 covers women's basketball, with an interesting time frame. Allegation #2 states that from 2007 until 2010, UNC provided extra benefits in the form of impermissible academic assistance and special arrangements to women's basketball student-athletes. What is interesting is this is right when Gail Goestenkors left Duke and Coach P was hired. Duke had absolutely killed UNC on the court and in recruiting during Gail's last seven years at Duke. Hatchell saw this as a golden opportunity to get the upper hand.

3) The NOA is very interesting in terms of how it characterizes the academic fraud - "improper benefits/impermissible benefits." UNC offered different types of classes that were the subject of the scandal - paper classes, independent study, non-existent classes that were simply created for athletes with work done by others, etc.

This is how the NCAA is getting around having to go through each and every course over eighteen years to determine what was and what was not a fraudulent class. In essence, the NCAA is telling UNC that the school can stand behind the clases, but that due to the disproportionate number of athletes taking them and the way the classes were set up and managed both constitute preferential treatment and, therefore, impermissible benefits.

And they were granted the impermissible benefits because of their status as athletes. When non-athletes ended up taking the courses (there is an email from one UNC official stating she did not mind non-athletes finding these classes as to avoid red flags).

Using the term "impermissible benefit" when referring to the academic shenanigans that went on for two decades means the NCAA does not have to examine each and every player (class by class, transcript by transcript, etc.) to determine GPA or the total number of fraudulent classes taken. The players received preferential treatment based on their athletic abilities. This is supported by the thousands of records (between the Wainstein Report and the NOA attachments) and the testimony/statements of advisors, secretaries, and professors were providing this "impermissible benefit".

4) The NCAA is clever in the use of the phrase "lack of institutional control." As with the benefits, use of the LOIC affords the NCAA the opportunity a broad range for Allegation #5.

The LOIC section clearly delineates systemic fraud by UNC over the course of several years, specifically referencing men's basketball. The exhibits supplement the LOIC. This is akin to a notice pleading, allowing UNC to understand the basis of the allegations, not delineate every single player who might have had eligibility issues. Rather, it summarizes the pattern and practice of improper benefits for athletes through paper/fictitious/sham "classes" based on existing evidence and shifts the burden to UNC to provide a legitimate defense.

UNC is on "notice" of the allegations of systemic fraud, specifically in reference to football, men's basketball, and women's basketball. UNC fans who claim that Roy Williams was not named are looking at this myopically or that the allegations do not specifically focus on men's basketball. If something is not included in the NOA, it cannot form the basis of an allegation and, therefore, cannot be part of a finding of a violation and a subsequent penalty. By being far more general but giving hundreds of exhibits and providing a general statement of the allegations, the NCAA is covered to bring a whole host of subsequent specific claims against UNC.

5) UNC fans stating that only ten athletes in eighteen years were not eligible do not understand the nature of the allegations and the NCAA rules. NCAA legislation specifically defines and categorizes different types of impermissible benefits (e.g., extra benefits, recruiting inducements, and preferential treatment). Regardless of the type of impermissible benefit, however, the prohibition is generally the same: under most circumstances, prospective and enrolled student-athletes (along with their friends and families) cannot receive goods or services based on their status as athletes. The following are categories of benefits that NCAA legislation prohibits boosters and other athletics stakeholders from providing to prospective and enrolled student-athletes:

-- Cash and cost-free goods and services;
-- Special discounts, payment arrangements, or credit options for products or services if the same are not available to all ASU students;
-- Preferential treatment, benefits, or services based on a student-athlete’s athletics reputation, skill, or pay-back potential as a future professional athlete;
-- Payment for work not performed or at unreasonable levels; and
-- The purchase of items or services from student-athletes or their relatives at inflated prices.

Prospective and enrolled student-athletes who receive such benefits jeopardize their eligibility to compete in intercollegiate athletics.

The NCAA could argue and quite successfully that the large percentage of athletes registered in these fraudulent, paper, sham, etc. classes is unequivocally demonstrative of preferential treatment and, therefore, an impermissible benefit. Add the documents and emails discussing plagiarized papers, changing of grades, and the need for certain grades, the preferential treatment is even greater. Factor in the emails about the bifurcated classes and certain professors upset because "50 players" somehow showed up on class rosters, and you see even more preferential treatment.

Given all this overwhelming evidence, it *should* be on UNC to prove all their players in MBB, WBB, etc. were eligible, not on the NCAA to prove they were ineligible.

6. Women's Basketball Will Be Thrown Under the Bus. For the UNC men's basketball program, Dean Smith's legacy will be spared. They will more likely than not be able to keep the banners from 2005 and 2009, but will have some combination of recruiting restrictions, postseason ban, or period of probation. Women's basketball, however, will lose scholarships, have a postseason ban of multiple years, will be on probation, and will vacate wins.

The scandal started with men's basketball in 1993, but women's basketball will have a greater punishment. Men's basketball is the cash cow for the university; it anchors the other sports. And do not be surprised if Sylvia Hatchell retires very soon, referencing a medical condition


Howee



Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15691
Location: OREGON (in my heart)


Back to top
PostPosted: 07/27/15 1:12 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

CamrnCrz1974 wrote:
....And do not be surprised if Sylvia Hatchell retires very soon, referencing a medical condition


I'd be surprised if she DIDN'T *retire*. Shocked I mean, what does she have to gain by fighting a very uphill battle?



_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
greatgator



Joined: 20 Dec 2012
Posts: 142



Back to top
PostPosted: 07/27/15 9:14 am    ::: Reply Reply with quote

Howee wrote:


I'd be surprised if she DIDN'T *retire*. Shocked I mean, what does she have to gain by fighting a very uphill battle?


Income (for herself and coaching staff)?

Respect and admiration from the players who have committed to her?


Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    RebKell's Junkie Boards Forum Index » NCAA Women's Basketball - General Discussion All times are GMT - 5 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11  Next
Page 1 of 11

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB 2.0.17 © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
phpBB Template by Vjacheslav Trushkin