Personally, I would prefer that people don't just post links without any discussion of what the link says.
Here's the title for the link:
The NCAA ignored a rule that could have punished UNC
In 2016, NCAA Rule 10.1(b) was repealed. This rule deemed as unethical conduct “Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit ... for an enrolled student athlete.” The NCAA had used it repeatedly to find student athletes guilty of academic fraud and rule them ineligible. In fact, this rule produced the first NCAA academic casualty at UNC in 2010 when football player Mike McAdoo was nailed for getting too much help on a paper from a tutor.
... Despite these rule changes coming after the UNC conduct had occurred, the NCAA applied this gaping new loophole to the UNC case and bemoaned the fact that it now had to find the university not guilty. ...
... Still, if the Committee was going to apply new rules to the UNC case, then it could have turned to a 2016 amendment dealing with academic misconduct. That new provision requires “all institutional staff members and student-athletes” to act with honesty and integrity in all academic matters. Would UNC have contended that the UNC employees involved in this sordid scandal acted with “honesty and integrity”? One can only hope not, but UNC never had to make that choice.
