1. Defending the life of your athletic department due to something that I actually agree was not necessarily truly an NCAA issue has little to do with academic integrity overall. Spending $20 million on it, I will agree is questionable. Until maybe you look at the other money schools spend (and bring in) via athletics. And there's a lot of "$20 millions" in a muti-billion dollar big university budget. 2. "EVERYBODY" wasn't doing it. Some non-athletes (and not all athletes) were and that's essentially why I don't see it as an NCAA issue. While it was clearly started to help athletes, it didn't actually benefit *only* athletes. "Your classes are too easy" is not an evaluation I want the NCAA making. Not their job. 3. Yes, it was "isolated" in the grand scheme. It wasn't "EVERYBODY" just because some non-athletes took those classes as well. The Wainstein report said 3,100 students participated in "paper classes" over the course of 18 years. Even if that is truly 3,100 individual people and not "enrollments," that's only 200 students/yr. How many people attended UNC over the course of those 18 years? How many people earned degrees without taking a single "paper class"? How many legitimate credits did those 3,100 students who benefitted from fraud earn in addition to fraudulent ones? People have reacted as if tens of thousands of people earned UNC degrees without ever going to a single class, when the reality is that there was a rogue element in one department that practically no one had ever heard of helping athletes (and others) stay eligible and progress toward graduation. Reprehensible behavior for sure. Heads directly (and some less directly) involved absolutely should have rolled. However, it's not something that should tarnish the academic reputation of an entire university and all those who ever earned a degree there or worked there the way some here seem to relish the narrative being.