Pete Fiutak, College Football News: "Did Missouri do anything wrong? Not really. It appears to be a rogue tutor who did all of this, but the school is getting hammered for helping out with the investigation. Something about this doesn’t seem quite right – the school and program appeared to do the right thing – but the NCAA is making a statement."
Andy Staples, SI.com: "Some of you are probably wondering why that’s such a big deal. The rules were broken. The school admitted it. A penalty was due. More of you are probably saying this: But what about North Carolina? That’s because every case the NCAA handles involving academic fraud will now be viewed through the prism of what the COI did to North Carolina for a case involving years of fake classes that had a disproportionate percentage of athletes enrolled. And what did the COI do to North Carolina for years of academic fraud that helped the Tar Heels’ teams? Nothing. This column won’t re-litigate that case, nor will it bash North Carolina for its defense in that case. In fact, UNC's defense was brilliant. The NCAA doesn’t have a rule against having an entire department full of fake classes that is open to every student on campus. The NCAA’s enforcement staff tried to accuse UNC of giving athletes 'extra benefits,' which was incredibly stupid because the NCAA’s definition of an extra benefit is basically 'something that isn’t available to the entire student body.' The classes were available to the entire student body. It’s an airtight defense, and it worked. Members of the COI—who work for schools and conferences—knew they couldn’t punish UNC because if UNC sued in real court, the verdict from the NCAA’s kangaroo court would never hold up. The members of the COI who handled the Missouri case pointed out this difference in the report they released Thursday."
Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com: "Let's get past the appeals and the outrage and faux presidential oversight. It seems that no one who really matters on the subject wants a clear, hard and fast definition of academic fraud. Never mind it is one of the pillars of the collegiate model. The best way to get past any academic misconduct these days is to push back. It worked for North Carolina in 2017. We'll see if it works for Missouri, which was hammered by the NCAA on Thursday. Mizzou was the latest 'victim' of the floating target that is defining academic fraud. The football program was given a postseason ban because of what everyone seems to agree was a rogue booster doing classwork for 12 athletes. Even though Missouri was praised by the NCAA for its cooperation in the investigation, apparently that cooperation wasn't quite enough. The school immediately appealed. Mizzou's reaction was predictable. Tigers athletic director Jim Sterk said the NCAA 'abused its discretion.' Chancellor Alexander Cartwright said the decision was 'harsh and inconsistent.' Missouri is upset, but ask most presidents these days and they would secretly (or perhaps not) tell you the status should remain quo. A clear definition of academic misconduct would hold everyone accountable. If you're a college president, why would you want that?"
J
Andy Staples, SI.com: "Some of you are probably wondering why that’s such a big deal. The rules were broken. The school admitted it. A penalty was due. More of you are probably saying this: But what about North Carolina? That’s because every case the NCAA handles involving academic fraud will now be viewed through the prism of what the COI did to North Carolina for a case involving years of fake classes that had a disproportionate percentage of athletes enrolled. And what did the COI do to North Carolina for years of academic fraud that helped the Tar Heels’ teams? Nothing. This column won’t re-litigate that case, nor will it bash North Carolina for its defense in that case. In fact, UNC's defense was brilliant. The NCAA doesn’t have a rule against having an entire department full of fake classes that is open to every student on campus. The NCAA’s enforcement staff tried to accuse UNC of giving athletes 'extra benefits,' which was incredibly stupid because the NCAA’s definition of an extra benefit is basically 'something that isn’t available to the entire student body.' The classes were available to the entire student body. It’s an airtight defense, and it worked. Members of the COI—who work for schools and conferences—knew they couldn’t punish UNC because if UNC sued in real court, the verdict from the NCAA’s kangaroo court would never hold up. The members of the COI who handled the Missouri case pointed out this difference in the report they released Thursday."
Dennis Dodd, CBSSports.com: "Let's get past the appeals and the outrage and faux presidential oversight. It seems that no one who really matters on the subject wants a clear, hard and fast definition of academic fraud. Never mind it is one of the pillars of the collegiate model. The best way to get past any academic misconduct these days is to push back. It worked for North Carolina in 2017. We'll see if it works for Missouri, which was hammered by the NCAA on Thursday. Mizzou was the latest 'victim' of the floating target that is defining academic fraud. The football program was given a postseason ban because of what everyone seems to agree was a rogue booster doing classwork for 12 athletes. Even though Missouri was praised by the NCAA for its cooperation in the investigation, apparently that cooperation wasn't quite enough. The school immediately appealed. Mizzou's reaction was predictable. Tigers athletic director Jim Sterk said the NCAA 'abused its discretion.' Chancellor Alexander Cartwright said the decision was 'harsh and inconsistent.' Missouri is upset, but ask most presidents these days and they would secretly (or perhaps not) tell you the status should remain quo. A clear definition of academic misconduct would hold everyone accountable. If you're a college president, why would you want that?"
J
