Does NCAA have the right to penalize Penn St?

[SBU72]

Since everybody else is talking about this and there is a chance that it could have repercussions on SU, do you think that the NCAA has the right to impose penalties on Penn St for actions of a head coach and school managment that had only margonally to do with the football team/program? Or do you believe that the criminal actions against them is enough?

 

[Melancer46]

Yes.

 

[orangejunkie]

Emmert is coming across well, especially during the Q & A segment.

 

[rrlbees]

Emmert is coming across well, especially during the Q & A segment.

What would you expect of an SU grad?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[RoysRunts]

NO

 

[orange79]

Since everybody else is talking about this and there is a chance that it could have repercussions on SU, do you think that the NCAA has the right to impose penalties on Penn St for actions of a head coach and school managment that had only margonally to do with the football team/program? Or do you believe that the criminal actions against them is enough?

Legitimate question, but I would argue that the actions of a head coach and school management had MUCH more than a marginal impact on the FB team and/or program. If they had acted then, this would have come out much sooner, any stigma associated with them would be long gone, and children would not have been raped. Any penalties (and I doubt there would have been many/any) would have been served. JoePa would still be the winningest coach. This, to me, is a great deal more than marginal. Not that FB is the most important thing here.

 

[jdubs30]

NCAA is responsible for monitoring institutional control (or lack thereof), so yes they have the right.

 

[realorange]

NCAA is responsible for monitoring institutional control (or lack thereof), so yes they have the right.

And in this case there is no arguement from Penn St. as they have signed a consent order agreeing with the penalties.

 

[MonsterGame]

If no one ever got there hand cut off for stealing in arab countries, do you think the crime rate would be so low?

To me, the penalties serve as much for punishment as they do for future deterrent. Institutional cover-up at that level to protect the image of the football program at the expense of children's lives needs punishment/determent. Additionally, the courts will decide the penalties for the actually crimes committed.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

I agree it's an effective deterrent, but not all effective deterrents are legal or just. This is a complex issue.

I was shocked at the penalties. Not because the offenses weren't egregious, but because none of them constituted an unfair advantage with regard to play and wins.

I would much rather the penalties be assessed against the individuals who committed the transgressions, and not against a university and its student body who had nothing to do with the offenses, and were in no position to do anything about them. Thousands of people will be affected by this. A handful of people committed the crimes. I realize the NCAA believes it has the right to do what it is doing, but i also wish the laws/regulations could be henceforth rewritten to hold accountable the actual criminals and not their innocent environs.

 

[MonsterGame]

but because none of them constituted an unfair advantage with regard to play and wins.

If the cover up protected the image of the football program, that could adversely affect recruitment and hence, play and wins.

Even if the above is true, that's not the bottom line for me. The NCAA by-laws say integrity matters with NCAA sports programs. This is a massive integrity failure by everyone at PSU who had any sway over the football program.

 

[Zelda Zonk]

If the cover up protected the image of the football program, that could adversely affect recruitment and hence, play and wins.

Good point. I don't agree with the foundation of it, but that's certainly an argument one could make. My problem with it is that it can't be quantified, and didn't increase Penn State's chances of winning. It only prevented a diminished chance of winning. But, hey — that's what lawyers are for. To make ridiculous arguments out of a quantum of logic...

 

[rrlbees]

Absolutely and the NCAA showed that today and PedSt in the end agreed.

And it did give them an advantage on the field. Not only would some recruits not have gone there if they knew there was a cover up for molestation, but Sandusky was regarded as one of the best, if not the best, in the game. He should never had been coaching as long as he did.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SBU72]

So for those of you have said yes, would you be comfortable if SU recieved harsh punisment if Bernie Fine is found to have done what Davis and his 1/2 brother or step brother claim? After all Davis claims that it happened while he was a ballboy for the team and went on trips with the team. Could one assume that since Davis was part of the extended team, actions could have happened on SU campus. Even if nobody can prove that JB or others knew what was happening, didn't SU show lack of instituational control by NOT knowing? The previous investigation could be seen really as a coverup, not a honest attempt to get to the truth.

 

[Bornorange]

...I would much rather the penalties be assessed against the individuals who committed the transgressions, and not against a university and its student body who had nothing to do with the offenses, and were in no position to do anything about them. Thousands of people will be affected by this. A handful of people committed the crimes. .

The problem was they protected the program instead of children. The point must be made that we will kill the golden calf if you allow crimes to be committed to protect it. Assessing penalties against only the individuals allows the program to remain relatively unscathed and others might think the punishment is worth the crime.

 

[Melancer46]

So for those of you have said yes, would you be comfortable if SU recieved harsh punisment if Bernie Fine is found to have done what Davis and his 1/2 brother or step brother claim? After all Davis claims that it happened while he was a ballboy for the team and went on trips with the team. Could one assume that since Davis was part of the extended team, actions could have happened on SU campus. Even if nobody can prove that JB or others knew what was happening, didn't SU show lack of instituational control by NOT knowing? The previous investigation could be seen really as a coverup, not a honest attempt to get to the truth.

I feel like they'd have to prove that the administration/JB knew about it still. The problem with PSU is that they knew about it, and then covered it up for the sake of their football program/the school as a whole. If it's proven that Bernie did do what the brothers accuse him of, but there's no proof that Syracuse knew and tried to cover their asses, I don't see how it's really their fault.

Having said that, I'm sure someone could make the argument that you're making, that it's a lack of institutional control because Bernie may have done these things without anyone noticing. But I think it at least would have had to have happened on campus. What Bernie did or did not do to these kids in his own house is not Syracuse's responsibility in my opinion.

And to this point, it still seems like there's no proof of what Fine did or did not do.

 

[caw]

I feel like they'd have to prove that the administration/JB knew about it still. The problem with PSU is that they knew about it, and then covered it up for the sake of their football program/the school as a whole. If it's proven that Bernie did do what the brothers accuse him of, but there's no proof that Syracuse knew and tried to cover their asses, I don't see how it's really their fault.

Having said that, I'm sure someone could make the argument that you're making, that it's a lack of institutional control because Bernie may have done these things without anyone noticing. But I think it at least would have had to have happened on campus. What Bernie did or did not do to these kids in his own house is not Syracuse's responsibility in my opinion.

And to this point, it still seems like there's no proof of what Fine did or did not do.

I think that is right but should probably include, "but failed to take action". If, for example, it could be shown that there was an accusation years ago that was reliable (key word) and it was dismissed without sufficient follow-up. In that case, Cuse could get hit. Lot's of points to connect before you get there though. Throw in the fact Fine's accusers are not the most reliable (like the 10 or so kids to young adults that have accused Sandosky), and I don't think Cuse has nearly as much to worry about.

 

[orangefan13]

The fans of the program that are innocent and grew up on this program get punished and for 4 years and then some more to rebuild, meanwhile the parents who left their children with sandusky get off free.

The issue wasn't football it was more off the field, but the bad actions continued by the programs power and sadly that hurts the program and caused many more victims.

Punishing the many for the few. Whether you think its fair or not thats what it is.

 

[orange79]

The fans of the program that are innocent and grew up on this program get punished and for 4 years and then some more to rebuild, meanwhile the parents who left their children with sandusky get off free.

The issue wasn't football it was more off the field, but the bad actions continued by the programs power and sadly that hurts the program and caused many more victims.

Punishing the many for the few. Whether you think its fair or not thats what it is.

What' the alternative punishment? You have to kill the culture. I don't see any other way to do it.

 

[GoSU96]

Since everybody else is talking about this and there is a chance that it could have repercussions on SU, do you think that the NCAA has the right to impose penalties on Penn St for actions of a head coach and school managment that had only margonally to do with the football team/program? Or do you believe that the criminal actions against them is enough?

Without PSU signing the agreement, and if this was just imposed, I think it's debateable.

 

[realorange]

Without PSU signing the agreement, and if this was just imposed, I think it's debateable.

PSU signed a consent agreement.

 

[AlaskaSU]

I am not expert on ncaa regs but it seems that they lack authority. None of their specific rules were broken and Penn State did not gain an unfair advantage in recruiting or on the field. There would have been no penalties if the Univ acted responsibly.

This is a legal matter that should be decided through torts. NCAA involvement in criminal activities not under its jurisdiction opens up a can of worms. If the ncaa is to rule on integrity and become the morality police without reference to specific regs they will anger a lot of schools and this will lead to their own demise. Some schools will be angry because investigations of alleged low moral programs at other schools have not been conducted and others will be angry if they are investigated. Does the ncaa now have authority to punish us because it was immoral for us not to give our report to the police? Who decides morality? and on what basis could there be consistency? It makes everyone feel good including the Univ to confess to do penance to the ncaa but this issue is for the courts. Criminal laws were broken, not ncaa rules.

A good analogy is interpretation of the Constitution. Wacked out liberals say that anything is justified due to the preamble of the Constitution. There is nothing enforceable in the preamble. 'General welfare' is outside the content of the enforceable Articles. My gut instinct is that the people that think the ncaa has jurisdiction are the same people that vote D and think that fixed documents are really organic living documents to be interpreted by current circumstances. You people may feel good about ncaa involvement and judicial activism but it will come back to bite you.

 

[rrlbees]

I am not expert on ncaa regs but it seems that they lack authority. None of their specific rules were broken and Penn State did not gain an unfair advantage in recruiting or on the field. There would have been no penalties if the Univ acted responsibly.

This is a legal matter that should be decided through torts. NCAA involvement in criminal activities not under its jurisdiction opens up a can of worms. If the ncaa is to rule on integrity and become the morality police without reference to specific regs they will anger a lot of schools and this will lead to their own demise. Some schools will be angry because investigations of alleged low moral programs at other schools have not been conducted and others will be angry if they are investigated. Does the ncaa now have authority to punish us because it was immoral for us not to give our report to the police? Who decides morality? and on what basis could there be consistency? It makes everyone feel good including the Univ to confess to do penance to the ncaa but this issue is for the courts. Criminal laws were broken, not ncaa rules.

A good analogy is interpretation of the Constitution. Wacked out liberals say that anything is justified due to the preamble of the Constitution. There is nothing enforceable in the preamble. 'General welfare' is outside the content of the enforceable Articles. My gut instinct is that the people that think the ncaa has jurisdiction are the same people that vote D and think that fixed documents are really organic living documents to be interpreted by current circumstances. You people may feel good about ncaa involvement and judicial activism but it will come back to bite you.

1. The NCAA spelled out the sections of the rulebook they broke and brought sanctions against them for.

2. They also had an advantage in recruiting by covering this up. They don't get some kids if the cover ip was known.

3. They also had an advantage on the field by virtue of allowing one of the best DC's in colkege coach for decades when he should have been in jail instead.

Pretty simple stuff if you aren't trying to ignore facts.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[MonsterGame]

I am not expert on ncaa regs but it seems that they lack authority. None of their specific rules were broken and Penn State did not gain an unfair advantage in recruiting or on the field. There would have been no penalties if the Univ acted responsibly.

This is a legal matter that should be decided through torts. NCAA involvement in criminal activities not under its jurisdiction opens up a can of worms. If the ncaa is to rule on integrity and become the morality police without reference to specific regs they will anger a lot of schools and this will lead to their own demise. Some schools will be angry because investigations of alleged low moral programs at other schools have not been conducted and others will be angry if they are investigated. Does the ncaa now have authority to punish us because it was immoral for us not to give our report to the police? Who decides morality? and on what basis could there be consistency? It makes everyone feel good including the Univ to confess to do penance to the ncaa but this issue is for the courts. Criminal laws were broken, not ncaa rules.

A good analogy is interpretation of the Constitution. Wacked out liberals say that anything is justified due to the preamble of the Constitution. There is nothing enforceable in the preamble. 'General welfare' is outside the content of the enforceable Articles. My gut instinct is that the people that think the ncaa has jurisdiction are the same people that vote D and think that fixed documents are really organic living documents to be interpreted by current circumstances. You people may feel good about ncaa involvement and judicial activism but it will come back to bite you.

PSU was NOT punished for breaking any criminal laws. PSU was punished for a massive cover up to protect the football program which allowed heinous criminal behavior to continue. Honestly, what if your only son was raped by JS after PSU could have done something to put an end to it but chose not to because the football program was more important than your son growing up to have a normal life? Think about that for awhile. All I know, is my son's tort settlement wouldn't be enough. I'd want a strong deterrent set for making sure schools don't engage in this kind of behavior in the future to protect their sports programs. If there is no NCAA punishment, the message from the NCAA is, "Hey, it's ok to cover up anything to protect your school's sports programs. To hell with the people casualties that occur. We have a big business to run here." Really? The NCAA absolutely had to act.

FYI, any sentence starting with "You people", isn't going to be perceived well.

 

[AlaskaSU]

1. The NCAA spelled out the sections of the rulebook they broke and brought sanctions against them for.

2. They also had an advantage in recruiting by covering this up. They don't get some kids if the cover ip was known.

3. They also had an advantage on the field by virtue of allowing one of the best DC's in colkege coach for decades when he should have been in jail instead.

Pretty simple stuff if you aren't trying to ignore facts.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

1) Exactly what section of the rule book other than that the ncaa says that integrity matters?
2) If there would have been no cover up there would have been no penalties. Was it a coverup of ncaa violations or of a legal violation? It was a legal violation.
3) There is no way of knowing whether the perps replacement would have been an improvement. There are experienced professionals available.

I want to see a specific citation of a rule violation. Violation of a general preamble statement does not cut it for me.