Choose a blog

About this blog

UNC Now is your place for Tar Heel sports. Beat writer Andrew Carter has up-to-the-minute news and analysis. Columnist Luke DeCock also contributes. Follow us on Twitter at @_andrewcarter or @accnow.

Latest news on UNC penalties

Bookmark and Share

The University of North Carolina’s football team has been banned from competing in the postseason in 2012, the NCAA announced on Monday. The postseason ban is the most significant of the additional penalties the NCAA announced in the wake of a multi-pronged scandal that rocked the UNC football program in 2010.

In addition to the postseason ban, the university will forfeit five football scholarships per season for the next three seasons. Former assistant coach John Blake, a central role in the scandal, has been given a “show-cause” provision for the next three years, essentially banning him from coaching in college during that time period.

The investigation began in June 2010, and the NCAA ruled 12 months later that UNC’s football program had committed nine major violations involving academic fraud, improper benefits and former assistant coach John Blake acting as an agent.

Read our staff article to get the latest news and reaction to the NCAA's penalties.

Read more here:
Read more here:


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Saw it coming

Butch was a problem in Miami. UNC hired him in spite of cheating and being terminated for it. Job losses should go higher than coach and AD. The flagship has disgraced the big four and ACC. Stop playing victim and take the punishment and change the behavior. Pride before a fall.


UNC is the flagship university in the state of North Carolina, now that the curtain has been pulled back, it looks like something quite different. What an awful mess!


The best thing about this is that it is finally over. Not excited about the bowl ban or additional scholarships, but could have been worse. The overall timing is good in that it did not affect recruiting this year, nor will it affect it next year. The big downside is for the Seniors. Fedora will make this work, he just may need a few years, which is okay. Go Heels!

I was reading personal quotes from this yrs recruits

Almost everyone of them were told this was a good possibility (bowl ban) while being recruited by UNC. But everyone of them still stand by the Tar Heels and are 100% committed to date.

It contradicts what the ncsu shill, Mark Thomas, was saying this morning on his radio show about how all the commits were lied to about their being no ban bowl whatsoever. I'm not paraphrasing what Thomas said either.

I have a serious problem with Mark Thomas being given a voice on our radio waves every morning considering he is also PAID by nc state university for their football and basketball shows that come on our tv. To my knowledge, no else that comes on 620 or 99.9 are paid by one of our Triangle schools nor ECU.

Wolfpack Sports

Wolfpack Sports Marketing

A division of Capitol Radio Network under the CBC umbrella, Wolfpack Sports Marketing handles all corporate marketing and sponsorship sales for the NC State University Department of Athletics. WSM produces radio play-by-play coverage of football, men’s and women’s basketball and baseball, television and radio coaches’ shows, the Game Day program and the Official Internet site for the Department of athletics,

So, basically, what that means is that the same company that owns 620 and 99.9 also produces NCSU radio broadcasts.

Also, I don't know if he still does, but Jeff Charles (voice of the Pirates) used to host a radio show in Greenville. which would be the same thing.

Why then,

do they insist on trying to air local programs that portray themselves as impartial? It's laughable, both on they AM and PM shows. Absolutely laughable. Mark Thomas does not hide his affection for NCSU, and can not hide his disdain for UNC. I guess Capital Broadcasting, the parent company of the radio station, only cares for less than one half of it's potential audience. I tune in to the morning show on my drive to work, and laugh out loud when I listen to Thomas stumble over his words when having to admit UNC's attributes. Ovies is no better, but he's does have a slight comedic tone to his satirical whit.

All this stuff about...

Should have been more severe, This media person said this, etc... The fact is no has ever received a bowl ban on what is seen as a "first offense" from the NCAA. That is a fact. This is the first case, and for those saying Oregon, S. Carolina, etc.. can breathe easy, I say "wrong". Look at the facts: The NCAA spokesman said UNC cooperation mitigated some punitive actions. The NCAA spokesman also called this case a "warning for other programs". That seems like talking out of both sides of the mouth, but perhaps UNC's punishment would have been more severe had they not cooperated. Certainly that is in disagreement with many, but it seems to me that UNC's punishment was somewhat heavy, although acceptable... also known as a compromise.

For what it's worth, the one charge UNC argued.. it was found not at fault. Thus, the one's they admitted to received the above penalty. I guess the lesson is if you're going to do it, hide it well, If you're found out admit only what's uncovered, and if you're found guilty just accept it and move on.

I'd like to also add a former player Deunta Williams said he thinks the punishment is rediculous, as he knows it to be a fact that "SEC schools pay their players". I'd like to see the NCAA investigate that tweet with the same fervor with which it came at UNC


If the NCAA were to investigate the paying of players outside of what the traditional scholarship contract says, they'd need multiple employees on every campus every day from now until eternity.

Told ya

...there would be a bowl ban.  1 year is an awfully light punishment though.  Even both the guys on PTI earlier said they thought it should have been 3 years.


Is that show still on ?

Well, and actual journalist..

Mike DeCoursey thinks the punishment was too severe. I guess everyone has a right to an opnion. I guess sometimes there's no right answer, just the fact.

Three things

1.) I feel it is more significant UNC is losing five scholarships a year for three years more so than a bowl ban. The Heels can't make up what SC and osu can with limited scholarships.

2.) I heard you specifically say to the NCAA that you thought UNC got off light and why we're they not hit harder ?! WTF ?

3.) why is this not under statenow ?

1.) You're probably right

1.) You're probably right about this hitting UNC harder than it does U$C and tOSU.  Should the NCAA base its sanctions on a school's ability to cope with them or on the severity of the infractions?  What if there's a sudden influx of talent under Fedora's leadership?  Should the NCAA then strengthen its sanctions to keep the effective punishment equal?

2.)  The first comment on this post is the first comment that I've made about this situation.  I'm not saying UNC got off light.  I'm just proposing that somebody in a position to get an answer ask Commissioner Swofford the question.  There is a documented precedent for the ACC imposing additional sanctions when a member institution commits NCAA violations.  Indeed, John Swofford then led the effort to impose additional sanctions.  I would think, being the fair and impartial person he is, he'd at least consider whether additional sanctions are warranted in this situation.

3.)  You'll have to ask the N&O.  Maybe they're adding the additional servers so that the new abcnow section of the blog won't bring the whole site down with its attendant traffic.

I appreciate your responses

But it was intended for Benedict Arnold aka Andrew Carter.

Argh.  Just noticed that.

Argh.  Just noticed that.  My bad.

A question for Commissioner Swofford

I think I already know the answer to this, but somebody in the press should ask it:  Will the ACC impose additional sanctions on UNC?

When Clemson was placed on probation with a two-year bowl ban in the 80's, then-UNC AD John Swofford convened a meeting of the other ACC athletic directors with the exception of Clemson.  He said that the NCAA had not gone far enough and that the academic integrity of all ACC schools had been impugned.  He urged his fellow AD's to add an additional year of sanctions and ultimately convinced them to do so.  Ultimately, Wake Forest and Maryland, appalled that the conference was considering such a move, walked out of the meeting, but the extra sanctions were approved and applied.

Surely, this situation warrants action by the ACC.

From an objective point of

From an objective point of view, I have to compliment Spacewolf on the question. It is indeed valid. 

From a Heels fan POV. I feel that the university conducted itself well and there is no real precedent to inflict further punitive measures on UNC. The coaches have been replaced as well as the AD and its obvious that the university is committed to learning from this debacle and moving forward in positve way.


Surely you jest. And don't call me Shirley.

Cars View All
Find a Car
Jobs View All
Find a Job
Homes View All
Find a Home

Want to post a comment?

In order to join the conversation, you must be a member of Click here to register or to log in.

About the blogger

Andrew Roman works as a content producer for When not slinging stories online, he contributes (infrequently) to the site's technology, weather, nightlife and fitness sections/blogs.