|
On July 25 2012 05:08 Bigtony wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 04:56 RJGooner wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:On July 25 2012 04:26 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote:
The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it... So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state: 1: Don't rape children. 2: Don't cover up for other people raping children. That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed. And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them. Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this. You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it. The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft. A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment. This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box. The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others. The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have. I don't know how someone can possibly be so wrong about the role of the NCAA and why they would just make things up at random. By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team. The NCAA is well within their rights to punish them.
What specific NCAA rule did the PSU football program break? Can you point that out to me please?
And since when did the NCAA have the right to get involved in criminal matters? If the Alabama football coach went drunk driving tomorrow and killed someone you think the NCAA has a right to get involved in that too?
|
On July 25 2012 05:13 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade. Do you honestly think that these sanctions are going to have ANY effect on other programs around the country? I mean, the message of "don't cover up for a child rapist on the staff" is certainly driven home here but do you really think the message they sent was "change the culture"? Look at the money that Penn State is losing from this. You're naive to think that Alabama, Michigan, LSU etc. won't continue to place a massive emphasis on the football program.
They certainly might. How do we know that any particular punishment for any particular crime will act as a deterrant for it?
We don't know it for certain. But I'd say that this is a good try. It shows that the NCAA is serious about not letting college football culture get out of control. And if they take other steps in addition to this, then things can improve.
Remember: the problem isn't with having a heavy emphasis on a football program. The problem is deifying it to the point where you're covering up horrible crimes to protect it.
|
On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade.
And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA.
A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
|
On July 25 2012 05:23 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade. And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA. A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
The NCAA is basically the parents of all the schools. The schools lie about things because they don't want to get in trouble, but then when they got caught the parents punish them for lying just as much if not more than the actual issue.
Arkansas' Coach Petrino was sleeping with a young woman and got her a Job over a much more qualified candidate. When the Arkansas AD found out, Petrino was fired. No NCAA sanctions, not even a slap on the wrist, because they took care of business.
|
On July 25 2012 05:23 Jerubaal wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade. And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA. A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics.
That people are willing to take up the cause of critiquing the NCAA system predicated on the PSU scandal is beyond me. There may be many instances of two-faced applications of NCAA-brand morality that are worth taking a look at, but this is not such an instance. I'm a hardcore OSU fan, and have been a Big10 boy all my life, and I definitely think the NCAA's handling of the PSU case has been appropriate thus far.
|
On July 25 2012 05:47 iGrok wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:23 Jerubaal wrote:On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade. And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA. A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics. The NCAA is basically the parents of all the schools. The schools lie about things because they don't want to get in trouble, but then when they got caught the parents punish them for lying just as much if not more than the actual issue. Arkansas' Coach Petrino was sleeping with a young woman and got her a Job over a much more qualified candidate. When the Arkansas AD found out, Petrino was fired. No NCAA sanctions, not even a slap on the wrist, because they took care of business.
What. The NCAA- a league of the schools- is not the parent of the schools- state run institutions. The NCAA has no authority other than what the schools agree to. If PSU never wanted to hear from the NCAA again, they could simply withdraw.
On July 25 2012 06:31 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:23 Jerubaal wrote:On July 25 2012 05:05 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:
You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it.
The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Actually, what was done very much did have to do with NCAA competition. The reason the NCAA got involved wasn't just because a coach raped children. It's because coaches covered it up. It's because PSU covered it up. It's because other people covered it up. And why did the cover-up happen? Because college football at PSU is serious business, and those people wouldn't allow their college football program to be harmed. On PSU, the college football program, and Pantero's legacy in particular, is God. And you can't let God be hurt by something like that, so they hid it. If the same thing had happened at Joe Rinkydink University, with a head coach that has a losing record, the cover up would almost certainly never have happened in the first place. So if there were no NCAA competition to begin with, there likely wouldn't have been a cover up. Thus, NCAA competition is very much involved. The purpose in handing this down is for the NCAA to wake up universities everywhere and remind them that college football is never that important. It is to punish them for promoting a culture that allowed such a crime to go unpunished for over a decade. And so the message that needs to be sent is that it's the NCAA that needs to be feared and respected as the hander down of judgments? That's the wrong message. That's the message that only makes people try to hide more from the NCAA. A judgment coming down from the state would have been a message that the university as an institution is more important than their fantasy land of college athletics. That people are willing to take up the cause of critiquing the NCAA system predicated on the PSU scandal is beyond me. There may be many instances of two-faced applications of NCAA-brand morality that are worth taking a look at, but this is not such an instance. I'm a hardcore OSU fan, and have been a Big10 boy all my life, and I definitely think the NCAA's handling of the PSU case has been appropriate thus far.
Because some of us didn't go 'herp derp child abuse time to shut the brain down'.
|
On July 25 2012 05:15 RJGooner wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 05:08 Bigtony wrote:On July 25 2012 04:56 RJGooner wrote:On July 25 2012 04:41 Jerubaal wrote:On July 25 2012 04:26 NicolBolas wrote:On July 25 2012 03:16 gh0st wrote:
The Freeh report includes internal e-mails between PSU admins following the 2001 incident, which McQueary reported to Paterno. Officials probably obtained those documents during the investigation, which would lead back to him. It's also possible McQueary went to investigators directly.
As for the NCAA sanctions, I can't find anything in the NCAA bylaws that authorizes this sort of punishment. Not only are the purported "violations" razor thin (the letter to PSU cites the "ethical conduct" section, which really has nothing to do with child abuse if you read it), but the way the NCAA handed down the punishment went totally outside the normal process for infractions. That said, PSU decided to take it, so I guess that's moot.
Morally, I think the punishment is the right thing to do. I'm just skeptical whether the NCAA really had the authority to do it... So let me get this straight. You're saying that, in order to have the mandate to hand down this punishment, the NCAA has to explicitly state: 1: Don't rape children. 2: Don't cover up for other people raping children. That's... an interesting way to think about it. One would think that these would be common sense and assumed. And technically, the NCAA doesn't allege that PSU broke any rules; this wasn't handed down by the usual NCAA resolution system. This was essentially a decree from the highest levels of the NCAA saying that "these are now the rules that PSU operates under within the NCAA." The NCAA makes those rules, and therefore they are well within their rights to change them. Also, as I understand, the sanctions were negotiated between the NCAA and PSU. Basically, the NCAA wanted to institute the "death penalty" (which again, they are well within their rights to do, as they sanction collegiate sports activity), and PSU argued them down to this. You seem to be having trouble grasping the objection. The NCAA is not The Grand Universal Arbiter of Everything. They are not enforcers of the law. They are an organization that federates universities for the purpose of athletic competition. That is their purview. In fact, they have 0 power if PSU decides to simply withdraw from the NCAA, but they won't because they get too much money from it. The laws broken had nothing to do with NCAA competition and it was incidental that the people involved were involved in an NCAA sport. This is much more like the NFL's policy of fining and suspending for anything that goes on their lives regardless of its connection to the sport. Of course, the NCAA could have- they didn't- make a justification based on an institutional aspect, but that would be like Blizzard banning you because you downloaded music illegally on the same computer you play Starcraft. A punishment like this should have been handed down from The State of Pennsylvania or their Education Board. Or, hey, we can even get the DoEducation to blackmail them because they're good at that. The NCAA did it because they wanted to look tough and because people don't care/are ignorant. That people were even looking to the NCAA for a response is just a testament to the stupidity of college sports at the moment. This is correct. The NCAA WAY overstepped their boundaries here, it is not their prerogative to deal with criminal matters such as this one, and they aren't equipped to do it even if it was in their mandate. All these sanctions do is open up a massive Pandora's box. The NCAA, as the post above has noted, is there to ensure that schools maintain an equal playing field. The reason they gave SMU the death penalty was because they paid players to come to the school and thus obtained an unfair advantage over others. The NCAA just sent the wrong message on this one. PSU's football program itself did nothing wrong and did not violate any NCAA rules. In fact, PSU's program was one of the most highly regarded in the country, not only because it was successful but also because the players graduated. For the NCAA to step in here and basically destroy the football program with one fell swoop is just wrong. It won't send any messages about the "football first" culture to any other schools I'll tell you that much. Alabama, Texas, Michigan, all those schools will continue to place heavy emphasis on football just like they always have. I don't know how someone can possibly be so wrong about the role of the NCAA and why they would just make things up at random. By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team. The NCAA is well within their rights to punish them. What specific NCAA rule did the PSU football program break? Can you point that out to me please? And since when did the NCAA have the right to get involved in criminal matters? If the Alabama football coach went drunk driving tomorrow and killed someone you think the NCAA has a right to get involved in that too?
Can you read? I don't understand why this has to be explained on every page of the topic. The NCAA has rules regarding "institutional control" - basically when I said:
By being a member of the NCAA, you agree to abide by their rules. Part of their rules is that you don't harm the reputation of the organization or the sports you represent. PSU decidedly harmed the reputation of the organization and the sport. They knowingly colluded to hide criminal activity in order to protect their football team.
this is what I'm referring to. You can go read up the NCAA bylaws on your own time if you like. If Penn State and every pundit I've read on the subject agrees, the burden of proof is on you to prove otherwise.
The NCAA is NOT getting involved in criminal matters. Don't you understand that? They are punishing Penn State because they did something really bad and then lied about it for 10 years. Once the criminal proceedings were finished (read: the NCAA did not engage in any type of investigation into criminal matters, they relied on official, public records of criminal activity), they added their punishment based on their rules of membership.
Your drunk driving football coach example - if the school decided not to take their own action, then yes, the NCAA would have reason to take action depending on the circumstances. If the school is not policing themselves, the NCAA may step in and impose a punishment.
Just like if I was convicted of drunk driving or another serious misdemeanor outside of my job, I might face consequences at work. Your actions outside of your job, the person you are in your private time, matter if they becomes public.
|
I hear a lot of opinion about the NCAA role and its rules and not much fact. Here are the relevant bylaws that were cited in the NCAA's letter to PSU the day before the sanctions were handed down:
BYLAW, ARTICLE 10
ethical Conduct
10.01 general principle
10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with
honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
10.02 DeFiniTions AnD APPLiCATions
10.02.1 sports wagering. [#] Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff
member’s or student-athlete’s own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are
not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed
on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an
opportunity to win a prize. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
10.02.2 wager. [#] A wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of
value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value. (Adopted: 4/26/07
effective 8/1/07)
10.1 Unethical Conduct
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member,
which includes any individual who performs work for the institution or the athletics department even if he or she
does not receive compensation for such work, may include, but is not limited to, the following: (Revised: 1/10/90,
1/9/96, 2/22/01, 10/5/10)
(a) Refusal to furnish information relevant to an investigation of a possible violation of an NCAA regulation
when requested to do so by the NCAA or the individual’s institution;
(b) Knowing involvement in arranging for fraudulent academic credit or false transcripts for a prospective or an
enrolled student-athlete;
(c) Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96)
(d) Knowingly furnishing or knowingly influencing others to furnish the NCAA or the individual’s institution
false or misleading information concerning an individual’s involvement in or knowledge of matters relevant
to a possible violation of an NCAA regulation; (Revised: 1/16/10)
(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a studentathlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., “runner”); (Adopted:
1/9/96, Revised: 8/4/05)
(f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes,
or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted
standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law. This provision shall not apply to banned
substances for which the student-athlete has received a medical exception per Bylaw 31.2.3.5; however, the
substance must be provided in accordance with medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care and
state or federal law; (Adopted: 8/4/05, Revised: 5/6/08)
(g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or an institution’s admissions office regarding an individual’s academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of
coursework, grades and test scores); (Adopted: 4/27/06, Revised: 10/23/07)
(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations; (Adopted: 4/27/06)
(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or (Adopted: 4/27/06)
(j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the
institution’s athletics department regarding an individual’s amateur status. (Adopted: 1/8/07, Revised: 5/9/07)
source: NCAA Div 1 Manual
The bolded portion makes it very clear that member institutions have a responsibility to conduct themselves honestly and in a sportsmanlike manner for the purpose of promoting fair play and the "high standards" of competitive sports. What does child sex abuse have to do with "fair play" and competitive sports? Not much.
If you continue reading, you'll note some of the examples the NCAA gives for ethical misconduct. Sports wagering, doping, falsifying grades, paying players etc. While it states that it is not an exhaustive list, there is nothing mentioned that remotely resembles what we're talking about here. Instead it's about preventing institutions from gaining unfair competitive advantages. One must stretch this language quite a bit to cover child sex abuse and the resulting coverup.
Someone mentioned that PSU might have violated the section on institutional control. That section does several things: It outlines how authority within the institution should flow. It outlines how the school's athletic budgets should be handled. It creates an obligation on the part of the institution to monitor itself and routinely assess whether it is in compliance with NCAA regulations. It defines anyone who is acting in the interests of the university or its athletic programs to be an agent of the institution and makes the institution responsible for their conduct. (E.g. a booster). None of this really supports what the NCAA did to Penn State...
Again, I think morally some sort of institutional punishment is necessary. I just don't think the NCAA really has the authority to impose the punishment given how its setup and what it's supposed to do... But the point is kinda moot since Penn State decided to accept the judgment.
|
1. "Includes but is not limited to." - that statement is broad and non-specific for a reason. I think the coverup of illegal activity clearly qualifies as unethical.
2. "10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with
honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports." - The entire point of this is that at ALL TIMES, even when not engaged in sport, they represent the sport, school, and NCAA with honesty and sportsmanship. Is lying to cover up a crime and protecting a rapist an exemplar of sportsmanship and honesty?
3. The institution engaged in broad coverup of a heinous crime with knowledge of several members of the coaching staff and the administration. The bylaws state that the administrators are responsible for preventing this exact kind of thing to the best of their ability. The school did not properly handle their finding of unethical behavior, in fact they actively engaged in unethical behavior. Clearly there was a lack of institutional control, therefore the NCAA punished them.
tl;dr - I honestly don't even know why people are attacking the NCAA over this. How can you read the bylaws and think that they don't have this authority? NCAA punishment doesn't preclude a Department of Education or state punishment, nor does it pretend to be a criminal punishment.
In Warcraft there was a saying - "Your actions reflect the guild." If you did something wrong, even outside a guild event or whatever, there were consequences. Even if you got an official suspension from Blizzard, there were still consequences on top of that from your guild. The principle is the same here, as it is in many areas of life.
Do you think that pro sports teams should not punish athletes who drive drunk, get caught with drugs, and beat women just because it's "off the field, nothing to do with sports?" Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but it's pretty much wrong. Their negative actions are harmful to the team and the sport as a whole, and there are consequences for that.
|
Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment.
*And to be clear, the bylaws calls on member institutions to be honest "so that" (i.e. "for the purpose of") promoting fairplay and high quality competitive sports. Subtle distinction but worth making because it goes back to what the NCAA was created to do, namely, to ensure that collegiate athletics is safe and fair and supports the overarching academic mission of the university. If you look at the bylaws, the NCAA has a very clear, specific scope, and I believe what happened at Penn State is outside that scope.
I don't know about your Warcraft example because I play real games (j/k). But in the case of NFL players, they sign a contract that clearly stipulates the consequences of off-the-field misconduct (not only with the NFL but with the team). In this case, no where in the NCAA bylaws does it say what happened at PSU constitutes an NCAA violation. To my knowledge, there is no previous example of the NCAA handing down sanctions for anything remotely similar to this. So it makes sense to me why some of us might be skeptical of whether the NCAA really has the authority to punish PSU.
The reason no one really cares one way or another is that this situation involves kids, and that changes stuff for everybody (myself included). But the NCAA DID set a new precedent with this decision, one that could have far-reaching effects for the NCAA and its member institutions. I'll give you a hypothetical. I'll use OU, my alma mater, as the example:
Let's pretend Coach Stoops (head football coach) has a penchant for sexually harassing the secretaries working in the athletic dept. Internal complaints are made and evidence of wrongdoing is presented to the athletic director and OU's president, who promptly decide to sweep it all under the rug because, hey, Coach Stoops is a winner. (thankfully this would never happen because David Boren is a smart man). Thanks to the work of some intrepid journalists and a police investigation, Stoops, the AD and the president are ousted from their positions. They face potential criminal charges as well as rather hefty civil lawsuits to boot.
Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb.
|
I don't know why I expect people on the Internet to follow a logical thought process and read with an open mind.
The section on unethical behavior is purposefully non-specific. Just because the enumerated examples focus on "on the field" cases does not exclude other things. Even if the coverup itself doesnt fall under their purview, the fsct is that PSU used their unethical behavior to maintain a competitive advantage using a false facade.
"bringing the sport/organization into disrepute" is a perfectly valid reason for sanction. Even when criminal actions are not committed, organizations can punish their members. It happens in many leagues across the world (formula 1 team orders in 2010 and 2002 I think are good examples of this).
There's no precedent for something like this because no school has covered up (for at least 10 years) a sexual abuse scandal that stretches back at least 20 years. In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case. So you're right, there's no precedent for this because the magnitude of this is insane. Fuck, I can think of very few mass molestation cases like this anywhere (other than the catholic church scandal).
Furthermore, I don't see how this kind of precedent is a bad thing. "if you coverup crimes to protect your sports teams were going to punish you in addition to whatever criminal/civil punishments you receive, so keep your shit straight." how is that a bad precedent? It's not like the NCAA made an arbitrary judgement here.
|
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote:
Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment.
They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical.
So this whole argument boils down to this: is an institution covering up a sex scandal for more than a decade ethical, or is it not?
On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote:
Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb.
The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
|
Penn State has the absolute 100% right to tell the NCAA & Big 10 to GFY and not pay.
And the NCAA and Big 10 have the absolute right to kick them out and bar any other NCAA affiliated team from setting foot there, and remove them from any revenue sharing agreement(s).
|
On July 25 2012 23:01 Hawk wrote:Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote:
Bigtony: No, I don't think Penn State's conduct is an "exemplar of sportmanship and honesty.*" I didn't say it was... My point is that the section on unethical conduct focuses on behavior related to gaining an unfair competitive advantage in intercollegiate sports (e.g. doping players, manipulating elgibility etc). Extending this section of the bylaws to include what occurred at Penn State is an unprecedented, and in my opinion, unwarranted expansion of the NCAA's power. They don't have the jurisdiction to do something like this. And the only reason the NCAA isn't in court right now fighting an injunction is because Penn State agreed to the punishment. They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical. So this whole argument boils down to this: is an institution covering up a sex scandal for more than a decade ethical, or is it not? Show nested quote +On July 25 2012 16:05 gh0st wrote:
Well after the fact, the NCAA steps in and strips OU of its wins during the Stoops era, including the 2000 national championship, prohibits OU from playing in bowls for 4 years, cuts its scholarships in half and levies a big fine. Do you think that's justified?
See, unlike the PSU situation, I would have a real problem with the NCAA stepping in that hypothetical, and not just because it's my team that's getting hurt. The bad actors are gone. They're getting their just dessert. The only people getting penalized at that point are the players and the school. You better believe people would fight that.
In a perfect world, I think PSU should've been able to announce the sanctions themselves (punishing themselves basically) and leave the NCAA out of it. The NCAA could then issue a statement I guess in support. But that solution would've been much better from a PR point of view and wouldn't put the NCAA out on such a precarious limb. The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
Thisx1000, when Jerubaal claimed that Penn State could simply forego NCAA membership and avoid the penalties it was made clear just how little he understands the strictures of conference and NCAA membership. As if a school so firmly entrenched in the commercial world of collegiate athletics could just up and leave, lol.
|
I found it amusing that the President of the NCAA said "we decided not to give them the death penalty". Seriously? I am pretty sure this is going to kill the program. They will be under sanctions for 5 years then it will be another 5 years before they can rebuild any that resembles a contending football program.
|
On July 26 2012 01:02 Damien Kirojo wrote:
I found it amusing that the President of the NCAA said "we decided not to give them the death penalty". Seriously? I am pretty sure this is going to kill the program. They will be under sanctions for 5 years then it will be another 5 years before they can rebuild any that resembles a contending football program.
Big fuckin whoop. Tons of colleges throughout the entire country have football teams that can't contend, but they still have teams. PSU doesn't deserve a bowl-contending team at the moment, plain and simple.
|
On July 25 2012 17:18 Bigtony wrote:
The section on unethical behavior is purposefully non-specific. Just because the enumerated examples focus on "on the field" cases does not exclude other things. Even if the coverup itself doesnt fall under their purview, the fsct is that PSU used their unethical behavior to maintain a competitive advantage using a false facade.
I agree it is purposefully non-specific. That's because the NCAA doesn't want to define cheating too narrowly. At it's core, that's what all the examples of ethical misconduct are about, and to my knowledge, what all past NCAA infractions cases have been about. Now, if you're argument is that PSU covered up the abuse to maintain a competitive advantage (i.e. cheating) then we're getting somewhere, because I think that might bring the scandal under the NCAA's purview.
So how did Penn State's action create an unfair competitive advantage? How did the cover-up help Penn State score more touchdowns on the field? How did it help them win? We can speculate that some players might have transferred after the scandal broke had PSU done the "right thing." Or that star recruits might have gone somewhere else... But we're just guessing what might have happened. It's not concrete. I'm also unclear why PSU would be responsible for what recruits/transfer students decide to do...
"bringing the sport/organization into disrepute" is a perfectly valid reason for sanction. Even when criminal actions are not committed, organizations can punish their members. It happens in many leagues across the world (formula 1 team orders in 2010 and 2002 I think are good examples of this).
OK so what about adultery? Former football coach A has a reputation for cheating on his wife. He retires after a long, successful career at the school, during which his exploits are kept quiet. Coach B comes in and starts recruiting and gives the usual boilerplate about how he'll build good, upstanding young men blah blah blah. Does Coach B have an obligation to disclose his predecessor's past behavior? If he fails to do that, does the NCAA get involved? I mean, where do you draw the line? Like you said, "unethical conduct" can be construed very broadly... (So broad, in fact, I'd say it's almost meaningless for the purposes of setting up rules for people/organizations to follow, but that's a separate issue).
There's no precedent for something like this because no school has covered up (for at least 10 years) a sexual abuse scandal that stretches back at least 20 years. In your hypothetical situation I'd be siding with you, but it's nowhere near the magnitude of the PSU case. So you're right, there's no precedent for this because the magnitude of this is insane. Fuck, I can think of very few mass molestation cases like this anywhere (other than the catholic church scandal).
We don't know that it hasn't happened before. It's possible something like it has occurred at other schools. OK, so you agree that the NCAA has no business getting involved in my sexual harassment hypothetical. Why? What's the difference? Sexual harassment is illegal in most places. It's clearly unethical conduct. And in the hypothetical, school admins cover it up to protect the (current!) coach and program. The difference is kids are involved in the Penn State case and for you, that makes it a much bigger deal. On a purely emotional level, I agree with you. But where does it say in these bylaws that you're interpreting so broadly that the NCAA will only involve itself in cases that deal with kids? Where does it say it will only pile on schools that cover-up "really bad" stuff, but will let "lesser" things go? Yeah, it doesn't. So how can you say the NCAA hasn't set a new precedent?
Furthermore, I don't see how this kind of precedent is a bad thing. "if you coverup crimes to protect your sports teams were going to punish you in addition to whatever criminal/civil punishments you receive, so keep your shit straight." how is that a bad precedent? It's not like the NCAA made an arbitrary judgement here.
Because if you have a guy like Mark Emmert in charge you could get situations like the sexual harassment hypothetical I gave you, and that's bad. The NCAA isn't supercop.
On July 25 2012 23:01 Hawk wrote:
They're not in court fighting because 'included but not limited to' in the ethical section is pretty goddamn broad for shit like this and you OU hypothetical. If they were to fight, it would be over whether or not the severity of the punishmenti s warranted (which is what you're bitching about) not whether or not the NCAA has the authority because it pretty damn clearly does. That language gives them final say in what is and isn't ethical.
You apparently don't know many lawyers. A good lawyer could do a lot more with less. And yeah, part of it hinges on how you interpret "ethical" conduct. But it wouldn't be looked at in a vacuum. Look, NCAA has a job to do. That job isn't to stop child abuse. It isn't to ensure all persons affiliated with collegiate athletics do "good stuff." It's to ensure the safety and fairness of collegiate athletics and make sure it promotes the academic mission of the university. The link between that mission and what happened at Penn State is tenuous at best.
The NCAA only looks to be on a precarious limb to those who either think the punishment was harsh (an opinion) or those who are unable to comprehend a very straight forward bylaw that gives the NCAA the power to do this.
I never said I thought the punishment was too harsh. Please don't put words in my mouth. In fact, I said the opposite, that some sort of institutional punishment was the right thing to do. I just don't agree that the NCAA has the power to do this, and I disagree that the bylaw is "very straight-forward."
|
The new coach of Penn St feels differently Damien. So did USC when they were suspended from bowl games.
|
Not that I think the sanctions against Penn State add up to the death penalty. Obviously they don't. But the coach of Penn State kinda has a reason to be optimistic about his team's chances, dontyathink?
|
Is there a sane goddamn person in this world who would interpret a systematic cover up of crimes by a school employee/associate on school grounds ( a crime in itself) to be ethical?? It is literally as simple as that. There isn't a lawyer on earth who could argue the actions of the school as ethical.
It's not at all like your ridiculous straw man of adultry between two consenting adults (not a crime) being something that would even cross this threshhold. And even if it did, what does it even have to do with the above statement about the interpretation of what happened at PSU?
rather than quoting the manual, check the statement from the ncaa which clearly references several of the above bylaws, making very specific reference to the ethical one
http://www.ncaa.com/content/penn-state-conclusions
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
