<p>As far as the other aspects of this story go: </p>
<p>I did my undergraduate studies at UNC. Spent an amazing four years there, and had classes with plenty of athletes (including some of the more famous basketball players that have come through UNC recently). Without exception, every athlete I was in class with was a good student; always attentive, always in class, always polite. McCants has a history of blaming everyone else for his struggles. In 2004, McCants made ESPN because he complained that he was “always in class” at UNC and compared it to “being in jail.” Now, he says he was never in class. Either he was lying then, or he is lying now. Either way, it is telling that Roy’s former UNC players and KU players have come out supporting Roy’s side, and that no one has come out supporting McCants. Heck, even a famous player who played for NC State at the time has said that he doesn’t believe a word that McCants said, and that McCants is unstable. That says enough right there. </p>
<p>McCants took AfAm classes before the 2004-2005 season. He was taking them all along. Assuming they were sham classes, which is evidently the case, he was only eligible in 2004-2005 by virtue of sham classes.</p>
<p>The only person who says they were sham classes is McCants. There have been 9 (yes, 9) separate investigations into the classes, and none have come to the conclusion that they were “shams”. They were taught as independent study classes instead of lectures, which is bad, but they still involved a considerable amount of work, and contained athletes as well as a sizeable number of non-athletes, which is why the NCAA decided not to act.</p>
<p>For the record, one of the top 3 most difficult classes I ever took at UNC was a “paper” class, that didn’t meet but required a 25-page paper at the end. The only people who think all AFAM classes are “shams” are rival fans and those who haven’t been following this scandal long enough. </p>
<p>The particular 2005 AfAm classes McCants took haven’t been determined to be shams. Yet. </p>
<p>But the Martin report looked at classes from 2007 on, and found plenty of AfAm phony classes: Classes that didn’t have instructors. Classes where the student enrollment data was changed after the class ended. Classes where grades were changed after the class ended, by someone other than the instructor. Classes that were designed as lecture classes, but that didn’t have any lectures.</p>
<p>Moreover, the Martin report said that the phony classes extended back to 1997. They didn’t identify particular phony classes in 2005, but they did find that a number of classes looked phony. Check the graphs in the report.</p>
<p>I’m glad you cited the Martin Report. If you read the report, you’ll notice that the word “phony” never appears in there. As I said, the problem was that the classes were taught as independent studies classes when they were supposed to have been lecture classes. That is a serious issue, and resulted in a professor being criminally charged. However, it is an issue that was dealt with years ago, and, as the Martin Report clearly states, there is no evidence that anyone in the athletic department was involved, nor is there any evidence that the suspect classes were intended to keep athletes eligible. Since you cite the former Governor’s report here, I’m sure you agree with his conclusions.</p>
<p>The problem is that the classes didn’t have any instructors and/or the enrollment in the classes was changed after the classes ended and/or grades were changed by someone other than the instructor. The report didn’t use the word “phony,” but nobody is seriously going to argue that a class without an instructor, or a class that a student can retroactively take after the class is over, is anything but a phony, a fake or a sham. Maybe the athletic department didn’t know their students were taking phony classes, but the classes were undoubtedly phony.</p>
<p>Read it again. The classes were taught in independent study format and did exist, so therefore they can’t be phony. Anyways, we are splitting hairs here, and somewhat needlessly because the classes highlighted by the Martin Report haven’t been present in years and everyone responsible for them is either awaiting criminal trial or is no longer with the university. I am glad that you accept the Martin Report’s conclusion that the athletic department had nothing to do with the classes, however. Seems like you and the NCAA agree about that. </p>
<p>Wow SOG, you’d think someone like you would have followed this several years ago instead of now. Since Duke sends it’s athletes to central Carolina to take their classes, what’s your real issue?</p>
<p>Hahahahaha! They didn’t have instructors. They didn’t meet. Students could sign up for them and get grades after the classes were over. This is the very art and essence of phony. They were not so much “independent study” but “independent OF study.”</p>
<p>CF, this has been addressed. Nobody disagrees that this was wrong. Chancellor Thorpe is gone, largely due to this, the professor is being prosecuted. It is a horrible thing that happened years ago. It was not only athletes, by a long shot, and it has never been shown to have anything to do with the athletic department. But it’s not new. </p>
<p>Agreed. The only people who seem to fret about things that happened a decade ago now are either rival fans or banner chasers…i.e. people who are going to be severely disappointed. </p>
<p>Poetgrl, let’s not resort to demeaning NCCU just to defend UNC-CH. You neglected to mention that all Duke students are eligible to enroll in courses at NCCU, if I correctly recall. Incidentally, NCCU has been said to have one of the more substantive core curricula in the UNC system, so classes there are not uniformly easy, as you seem to suggest.</p>
<p>And since when is it kosher to take several independent study classes in the same term? Maybe two, but McCants’ records shows that he was enrolled in several. That’s a bit unusual for most U.S. colleges.</p>
<p>Nothing unusual about it at all, apparently. NC State fans have been giving UNC a lot of flack about this but their former quarterback, Mike Glennon, freely admitted that during his last two fall semesters at NC State he took only independent studies courses, meaning that he only had to actually show up to school for football practice and games. So, I guess it isn’t much of a big deal. </p>
<p>This is why this is getting so old, SOG. Many non athletes took those classes, too. Calling UNC auburn is obnoxious. You and I both know the NCAA would never sanction sec football. ;)</p>
<p>With regard to Duke, both Duke and UNC recruit the same basketball players with the same score ranges. If there was truly a vast conspiracy to keep the basketball players eligible at UNC, how do these same people stay eligible at Duke? Are the classes at UNC that much harder than they are at Duke? Probably not.</p>
<p>Also, what about the players that have transferred out of UNC recently and went on to play at other schools? How did these athletes not flunk out immediately once they got away from the big “conspiracy” to keep them eligible? There is a reason that the NCAA hasn’t acted on this issue.</p>