This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Just seems like another opportunity for the NCAA to remind us that a "career" as a professional athlete isn't a real career. Plus, they get to shed some the guilt they have for contributing to the sports we, the unwashed masses, shamefully find meaningful.
I am sure this is the case.
I'm speculating on likely outcomes, not stating a personal desire. For the record, I support ZERO sanctions on the university academically. I just think that in an election year you won't see a push to do anything like this from a federal level. I think in the minds of most, justice was served today, and no one will be looking to stir up a bees best in a swing state, when the cost and impact would be felt directly by PA voters. If that were off the table, you might see a different hue and cry. Nothing will happen anyway, has the tax exempt status of the catholic church ever been questioned?
Ik you seem worked up by this, and that's plainly your purview. But I value your opinion and thoughts, so two questions:1. Do you thInk the school reacted appropriately in the wake of the indictment of Sandusky?2. Do you think if they had, would these sanctions have been as severe?
the loss of scholarships is by far more severe than a 1 year death penalty (imo). The fine? meh. The wins being taken away? meh. But that scholarship thing is going to blast the program into MAC/WAC/ect. status for ten years. Especially when you couple it with the black cloud already hanging over PSU recruitment. In sum, that part of the decree will totally destroy that program and it will take many, many years to come back from it (imo).
IMO, the Catholic church is a different situation. Schools that apply to receive federal financial aid under Title IV explicitly agree to certain terms and conditions. Churches are generally automatically tax exempt by statute and don't even need to apply for exempt status.It's possible PSU violated Title IV rules by not reporting a suspected crime, but there are no specific rules the Catholic church is required to abide by to maintain tax exempt status.
Possible is an understatement.ETA---Title IX BTW
I'll answer this.1. Yes. 2. Irrelevant question, given the answer to the first.3. Targeting the academic programs is absolutely ridiculous.
So are Title IX violations
I put "rules" in quotes because I didn't want to keep typing out "articles and operating bylaws." Just so everyone is clear, these are the "rules" you cited:Article 2.4 - people associated with athletic programs "should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility"
This "rule" specifically states the obligations of members and it doesn't mention criminal activity. The NCAA went so far beyond its purview it's laughable.
1. Edit: Yes. I read this the wrong way at first.2. I've argued all along that NCAA sanctions are completely inappropriate in this case. PSU didn't violate NCAA rules. People employed by the university broke the law, and I'm glad they have been or will be prosecuted. I fully support Sandusky's victims in their various civil suits against the university. My only point is that the NCAA has nothing to do with this. It's a criminal matter, not an issue of competitve balance and sportsmanship. And honestly, yes, it drives me a little nuts that people talk about this as if they were completely unaware of the existence of a criminal and civil court system that was set up for the purpose of dealing with this exact sort of issue.
Do you have the NCAA Code of Ethics handy? Seems like that's what the NCAA was citing.
Since when does probation make a team the equivalent of a D2 or MAC team? Florida went on probation and followed it up with two 7-5 seasons (pre-Spurrier, so it's not even like they were a powerhouse to begin with) and then won the SEC at 9-2 the next year while on probation AGAIN.I'm pretty sure USC is still out 10 scholarships from probation right now. Last I checked they're not getting stomped like a D2 school. In fact, it's almost a lock that they'll be the #1 team in the preseason polls for D1 this year.
The scope of Title IX goes beyond just gender equity.Title IX Could Lead to Penn State Death Penalty
Sorry, my mistake.
I am not talking about probation. I don't know how you could read my post and think I was. Anyway,
In what way?As I wrote in my first post on this topic, 2.4 expansively states, "These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program." That's the key language. They even use the word "broad," to make it clear that this is broad and not narrow.
No worries....I made the same assumption when I first saw it as well.
Still? This is the first season they are down 10 scholarships. This is also the first recruiting class that had to be at 15 or below. Southern Cal hasn't begun to feel the effects of the sanctions yet. In the coming years, they will be below 75 as more seniors graduate than they can replace with scholarship players.If Southern Cal hits on all their recruits, they all stay eligible, they all stay out of trouble and they all stay injury-free, then they will probably be fine (they'll still suffer from depth issues in game, but I'm assuming they start each game with no injuries). If not, then they'll be in trouble. They simply can't have the normal attrition that all programs endure. And, Penn St. is in an even worse situation.
This is really good work, Ivan.
For what it is worth, I think this is probably the more proper route for addressing the crimes at Penn State. The Clery Act seems directly on point with regard to the nature of the violations at hand. However, now that the NCAA stepped outside of its area of authority and levied such a penalty, I hope that there aren't further crippling sanctions, especially those which reach beyond the walls of Beaver Stadium. I know you disagree, but this punishment is a big deal. Add to it the millions of dollars yet to be paid out in civil suits and I think we've successfully ensured that no program will ever do something like this again while sufficiently 'hurting' the University. Further sanctions really aren't productive or helpful for anyone.
They cited these:
We shall agree to disagree, but my thinking is, the NCAA's hand was forced here. The university Administration, apart from the no-brained removal of spanier, Curley and paterno never really responded to this issue. And I think Paterno's firing is more tied to the university being concerned about him goiing off message in a press conference while sti being under the official employ of the school. A fear that proved justified. What Gauls me is, if paterno can't coach, how can the team play? To go out and play homecoming and a bowl game when the program has been part of something like that showed an avarice and defiance that showed self-policing wouldn't be possible. I commend erickaon for his actions but if the early rumblings of individual board members are accurate they are showing they STILL dont get it. Apparently he acted unilaterally in accepting these sanctions which presents an interesting battleground moving forward. But the bottom line is this, I think if they take the hit themselves, the NCAA doesn't jump in. Put differently, what do you think the picture would be like if the NCAA DIDN'T act?
No problem.
The fact that the constitution states that a school "should" apply certain values beyond "basic athletic issues" doesn't mean it is obligated to do so. Because the "obligation" of members set forth in the constitution only goes to "basic athletics issues." That's why I keep saying that what you've relied upon is merely aspirational rather than obligatory.You are wrong when you say that coaches and officials are required to display ethical conduct outside of "basic athletic issues."
Is that like French benefits?
This is stupid. PSU commissioned a third party (Freeh)to fully investigate the scandal. They did exactly what they were supposed to do. The NCAA has been poised to act since Freeh started his investigation.
should (shd)aux.v. Past tense of shall
I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
I think yesterday it was a somewhat interesting subject, today it has little to no meaning. Some people have argued for months that the NCAA had no authority and that there would be not punishment handed down or that if the NCAA tried to punish PSU it would be defeated when challenged. Now that the punishment has been handed down and accepted by PSU what is the point? There will never be any resolution because the truth is that even lawyers who focus on this type of law might not be able to come to a consensus. That is what lawyers do. The debate is being dominated by people that have been saying for months that it will not happen trying to reverse defend their position. It is the classic "It might look like I was wrong but I really right" message board debate. The punishment was handed down and accepted and which definition of "should" we are using is not going to change any of that.I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
And under title 9 can't they cut 40 women's scholarships?Of course I guess they could move the 40 mens scholarships to other sports if they aren't maxing them out to the NCAA limit.
On the other hand, we could become part of the nationwide movement pressuring the NCAA to back the #### off and consider itself lucky that it still has a function with college sports in the first place. The last thing any of us should want is that particular body interjecting itself into the non-competitive aspects of college sports.I think yesterday it was a somewhat interesting subject, today it has little to no meaning. Some people have argued for months that the NCAA had no authority and that there would be not punishment handed down or that if the NCAA tried to punish PSU it would be defeated when challenged. Now that the punishment has been handed down and accepted by PSU what is the point? There will never be any resolution because the truth is that even lawyers who focus on this type of law might not be able to come to a consensus. That is what lawyers do. The debate is being dominated by people that have been saying for months that it will not happen trying to reverse defend their position. It is the classic "It might look like I was wrong but I really right" message board debate. The punishment was handed down and accepted and which definition of "should" we are using is not going to change any of that.I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
You are missing the point. When one rule says members shall act in a certain manner in one context and another rule says members should act in the same manner in another context, the "shall" expresses a command while the "should" expresses a desire.
I think yesterday it was a somewhat interesting subject, today it has little to no meaning. Some people have argued for months that the NCAA had no authority and that there would be not punishment handed down or that if the NCAA tried to punish PSU it would be defeated when challenged. Now that the punishment has been handed down and accepted by PSU what is the point? There will never be any resolution because the truth is that even lawyers who focus on this type of law might not be able to come to a consensus. That is what lawyers do. The debate is being dominated by people that have been saying for months that it will not happen trying to reverse defend their position. It is the classic "It might look like I was wrong but I really right" message board debate. The punishment was handed down and accepted and which definition of "should" we are using is not going to change any of that.I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
and I agree. Any debates on this subject should focus the question of, did erickson have the authority to act unilaterally with consent of the board. I could see a coup occurring where the board tries to reopen This for appeal.
I believe they are now allowed three free rapes.
I'm good but I don't expect anything I write here to "change any of that." If the issue doesn't interest you feel free to put me on ignore.I think yesterday it was a somewhat interesting subject, today it has little to no meaning. Some people have argued for months that the NCAA had no authority and that there would be not punishment handed down or that if the NCAA tried to punish PSU it would be defeated when challenged. Now that the punishment has been handed down and accepted by PSU what is the point? There will never be any resolution because the truth is that even lawyers who focus on this type of law might not be able to come to a consensus. That is what lawyers do. The debate is being dominated by people that have been saying for months that it will not happen trying to reverse defend their position. It is the classic "It might look like I was wrong but I really right" message board debate. The punishment was handed down and accepted and which definition of "should" we are using is not going to change any of that.I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
Never! You can't make me!I'm good but I don't expect anything I write here to "change any of that." If the issue doesn't interest you feel free to put me on ignore.I think yesterday it was a somewhat interesting subject, today it has little to no meaning. Some people have argued for months that the NCAA had no authority and that there would be not punishment handed down or that if the NCAA tried to punish PSU it would be defeated when challenged. Now that the punishment has been handed down and accepted by PSU what is the point? There will never be any resolution because the truth is that even lawyers who focus on this type of law might not be able to come to a consensus. That is what lawyers do. The debate is being dominated by people that have been saying for months that it will not happen trying to reverse defend their position. It is the classic "It might look like I was wrong but I really right" message board debate. The punishment was handed down and accepted and which definition of "should" we are using is not going to change any of that.I think the NCAA's power in a situation like this is a pretty interesting subject. What topic would you like to discuss instead?Clearly the important thing to focus on in this situation is a legal argument about the specific wording and how it relates to arm-chair interpretation of the NCAA's power to punish in this situation.
The punishment was handed down and PSU accepted it. Move on.
