Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="javadoc, post: 313647, member: 338"] That was a good article, saw it yesterday. The issue of jurisdiction is clear-cut and stems from the ethics and morals Bylaw(s). I will quote again: [I]19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an [B]affirmative[/B] one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.[/I] The word affirmative is key here, and they even elaborate to make it clear. They don't use the legal term "affirmative duty" but it seems clear that is what they mean. This Bylaw specifically states that you have not only to be a good guy, but you have to [B]act[/B] to teach and educate the student-athletes on what it means to be a good guy. This doesn't mean that the morality police will be patrolling campuses, watching to see if Coach Smith is conducting his daily life lessons seminar. It doesn't mean that a school will get hammered if a coach turns out to be a bum who gets arrested, or some players, on their own, get into trouble. In this case, a direct chain of authority, starting from the topmost school administrator (who is also called out as the fount of Institutional Control) and descending four levels into the organizational hierarchy: [LIST] [*]refused to act to uphold the highest moral standards etc., thus violating their affirmative duty; [*]worse, [B]acted[/B] to enable and cover up the highest moral depradations of a child predator, turning the affirmative duty on its head. [/LIST] Does anyone here doubt that the NCAA has jurisdiction in this case? [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?