I'm not optimistic that the NCAA will do anything meaningful in the UNC case, despite the fact that in terms of scope and duration it is the most egregious case of NCAA academic fraud that I'm aware of. My recollection is that <b>the NCAA upfront said they were not going to question the bona fides of the sham courses that were used as the vehicle for maintaining eligibility, because non-athletes were permitted to enroll in those cases. </b>That makes no sense to me as, in my opinion, the question should be whether the purpose of those courses was to keep athletes eligible. Refusing to address that issue simply because of non-athlete eligibly opens a huge loophole for the use of academic fraud to maintain athlete eligibility.