As the University took care to note in a 111-page response to the NCAA’s allegations Monday, the athletic department’s history is almost entirely scandal-free. But considering the gravity of the football team’s violations, “almost” means nothing. The University showed an understanding of that point in answering the NCAA’s allegations with hefty self-imposed punishment; however, there are questions left to answer.
In an appropriately apologetic response that stopped short of banning the football team from post-season play, the University offered the NCAA a play-by-play account of the violations committed by the football team. It proposed sanctions that would include three fewer scholarships for each of the next three seasons, a $50,000 fine and a two-year probation. Those two years account for the seasons UNC fielded players who took improper benefits. With the University offering to vacate its wins from those years, the selfishness of those few players has now cost the 2008 and 2009 teams any formal recognition of their accomplishments.
As the NCAA considers the response and devises a final punishment, the University will be waiting with bated breath to see whether it’s permitted to partake in postseason bowl games anytime in coming years. Until then, the question of bowl game eligibility should come a distant second to more pressing questions.
First among them is the investigation, or lack thereof, into the former UNC tutor and mentor in question, Jennifer Wiley. In April 2010, nearly nine months after it opted not to renew her contract, the University received an anonymous tip naming Wiley as a purveyor of improper academic assistance. An investigation launched by athletic director Dick Baddour led to the questioning of a player on three separate occasions but no clear conclusions. The player denied any wrongdoing in each round of questioning — and the case was dropped without so much as a single meeting with Wiley.
Not until the day after Wiley paid $1,789 worth of parking tickets in August did the University bother to begin attempts to interview her. And officials said the University didn’t know about parking tickets until November.
In a Monday teleconference, Baddour said the anonymous nature of the tip hampered the investigation, as did the tip’s prioritization of extra benefits over academic help.
No matter how much or little it mentioned improper academic assistance, the tip deserved a full investigation. Instead, the investigation fizzled with the denials of the player in question and Baddour said, “we couldn’t do anymore with it.” Baddour gave no explanation why an earlier interview couldn’t have been that something more, or whether the timing of the University’s long overdue interest in her was a mere coincidence.
Those explanations are owed to the community and the NCAA as it reviews UNC’s response and comes up with the last word. Even after vacating its victories, that word could include a ban on bowl games for one or more of the coming years. There’s certainly a case for such a ban — but the NCAA should consider the University’s cooperation, concessions and reforms before dealing the team a blow that current and future players did nothing to deserve.
The reforms include an abandonment of the academic mentor program, increased funding for hiring and retaining tutors and expanding compliance education for tutors, along additional constraints to student athletes and their tutors or learning assistants.
