Penn State Goings-On

[Berkut]

How does stripping wins harm players?

That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.

And it only harms those who care about such symbols, which I suspect are not the individual athletes (they care about indifividual records, not W-L of the program in general). I seriously doubt any of them care one bit, or think that their accomplishments are in any way degraded.

[alfred russel]

MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.

How can the NCAA credibly force another school to vacate wins, endure a postseason ban, etc. because the administration turned a blind eye to players getting free tattoos while not doing anything to Penn State?

[The Minsky Moment]

How does stripping wins harm players?

That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.

I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?

This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.

[alfred russel]

I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?

This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.

But apparently this is a standard NCAA punishment when you are found to be committing some serious violation. I agree it is a crappy punishment in general if that is the argument, but if it is going to be applied for impermissable tattoos then why not here?

[The Minsky Moment]

MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.

The NCAA has one overaraching power, which is the power to say who is and who is not a member.  If they want to leverage that, they could.

I've read the applicable rules here and don't entirely agree with the view that the rules clearly permit the sanctions that issues in this case.  It is at the very least a big stretch to claim that the "ethics" rules were intended to capture this specific kind of conduct, and it looks to me like 10.4 says that consequence of violation is disciplinary action against the offending "Institutional staff members" not the whole institution.

So yes - you could say that my not-so modest proposal would exceed proper NCAA authority, but that would be like the NCAA protesting that there can't be any wallabys on its kangaroo court.

[The Minsky Moment]

But apparently this is a standard NCAA punishment when you are found to be committing some serious violation. I agree it is a crappy punishment in general if that is the argument, but if it is going to be applied for impermissable tattoos then why not here?

Because as I responded to Tim, I don't accept arguments in the form: we did something breathtakingly stupid and pointless in the past, therefore we should keep doing it for the sake of consistency.

[grumbler]

+$60 million - this is basically confiscating endowment money given in good faith by innocent donors, which the likely effect of harming faculty, students and the university's academic mission.  None of the individuals who committed the bad acts are harmed by this.

I agree that this element of the sanction was not well-thought-out.  This amount of money means nothing to PSU, and it is unclear how fining any money whatsoever achieves a purpose.

+ postseason ban: punishes the innocent student-athletes who previously committed to PSU and now are deprived of the opportunity to participate in bowl games for events that occured years ago that they had no responsibility for.

If playing in bowls means that much to the players, they can freely leave.  I think this sanction is apt.

+ Stripping past wins: a sanction that only Orwell could dream up of - and an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes.  And to what end?  So that a now dead ex-coach can be moved down a few ranks in the official NCAA W-L records?

While this sanction is silly, the arguments that it is "an attempt to erase the historical achievements of thousands of totally innocent student-athletes" is just as silly.  This is a non-issue.

The fact is that none of the bad actions here were committed by a "program".  Abstract nouns don't rape children and they don't cover up rape.  Actual human beings do these things.  Here the actual human beings that committed bad acts have been subject to the full investigatory powers and sanctions of the state.  And if that is not deemed sufficient, and the NCAA wants to punish those who it believes were negligent in supervision - then IT SHOULD DO THAT. 

The NCAA has no power to do that.  The NCAA has no power to, in fact, compel anyone to testify nor to collect any evidence except voluntarily.  The only reason the NCAA gets cooperation is because it can sanction the program, which is what you are arguing against.

I.e., something like this:
PSU has __ months to fire every administrator involved in the cover up, and replace every Trustee/Board member resonsbile for selecting and supervising those administrators.  PSU shall put in place the following rules and procedures (Exhibit A) to make sure this doesn't happen again.  If PSU doesn't comply, we will kick them out of the association for good.

No good.  Kicking PSU out of the NCAA would harm all the innocents you mentioned above, and wouldn't punish the individuals.

Something like that would target that actual individuals responsible, and put everyone else similarly situated on notice, while at the same time not causing collateral damage to innocent students, faculty, donors, alumni, etc.

If the NCAA shouldn't sanction programs for the actions of individuals, then it has no powers at all.  You are arguing that the NCAA should threaten to do exactly what you are arguing against, rather than just doing it.  If "punishing the innocent" is to be avoided at all costs, then you cannot morally argue that you do so by threatening to "punish the innocent."

What the NCAA had done instead is the opposite - impose a set of draconian measures that leaves the guilty parties essentially untouched while harming just about everyone else - all in the name of whipping the hell out of some abtract construct - "The Program"

The NCAA uses the leverage it has.  The "guilty parties" in this case are being punished by the law, and that's not the NCAA's bailiwick.

[Berkut]

How does stripping wins harm players?

That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.

I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?

This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.

Is that only in this case, or in all the other cases where the NCAA has stripped wins for, say, ineligible players playing in those games? Doesn't that also harm the players who were NOT inelgible?

The entire "It harms the innocent!" argument has no real weight with me - all punitive measures harm the innocent. The point to them is that absent those punitive measures, allowing whoever you are punishing to do whatever it is they are doing (and those who will do similar things in the future without this kind of control) MORE innocent people will be harmed.

In this case, the harm was extreme - PSU allowed a man to rape children rather than taint their precious legacy of football greatness. It sucks that lots of people are going to be harmed as a result of this, but the onus for that responsibility falls on PSU for allowing it to happen, not on the NCAA for imposing the penalties. You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.

I think there is in fact purpose behind symbolism. In this case, the symbolism rather nicely strikes only at those for whom sybmols are important, like the people who care about Penn States W/L record. It does not directly harm the athletes themselves at all - none of their records or stats are effected. They still rushed for however many yards, still threw however many TD passes, etc.

[grumbler]

To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.

An amusing notion, but just a notion you have.  I know of no one else who thinks vacating wins is "saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity."

It is symbolic - it means that everything the program's leadership accomplished while covering up the scandal is vacated.  Justin Kurpeikis is still a former all-Big-Ten offensive lineman.

[alfred russel]

MM, I think you are ignoring another perspective (I'm with you on the fine, btw). The NCAA can't effectively enforce penalties against individuals, so it must resort to punishing institutions. The NCAA has general guidelines for conduct, which Penn State apparently egregiously violated, and more specific rules regarding recruiting, etc. which don't apply here.

The NCAA has one overaraching power, which is the power to say who is and who is not a member.  If they want to leverage that, they could.

I've read the applicable rules here and don't entirely agree with the view that the rules clearly permit the sanctions that issues in this case.  It is at the very least a big stretch to claim that the "ethics" rules were intended to capture this specific kind of conduct, and it looks to me like 10.4 says that consequence of violation is disciplinary action against the offending "Institutional staff members" not the whole institution.

So yes - you could say that my not-so modest proposal would exceed proper NCAA authority, but that would be like the NCAA protesting that there can't be any wallabys on its kangaroo court.

It seems they are exercising that one overarching power, only more modestly. Regardless of what the rules say, I doubt it can enforce most of its sanctions against anyone. If Penn State decides to claim wins from 1998 unilaterally, offer more athletic scholarships than allowed, or ignore other aspects of the sanctions, ultimately the recourse of the NCAA is to expel Penn State.

[Berkut]

There are lots of rumours that Rodriguez is going after several PSU players pretty hard...

[sbr]

How does stripping wins harm players?

That is an entirely symbolic gesture - important nonetheless in the world of college football - but entirely symbolic.

I think you just answered your own question.
To the extent it is symbolic, it is saying to everyone who ever participated in PSU football that everything they did while they were there is a nullity.
Since there is no purpose beyond symbolism and since the symbolism is largely a giant FU to lots of people who were innocent, what is the point?

This is all in addition to the fact that the whole notion of rewriting history as some kind of symbolic punishment is bizarre and Orwellian to begin with.

You might as well blame the judge for my kid not having a place to live when he throws me in jail for killing someone. It is not the judges fault, it is the perpetrators fault.

[sbr]

There are lots of rumours that Rodriguez is going after several PSU players pretty hard...

I think almost everyone is, though none of them will admit it of course. 

The big to-do out here on the west coast is that  USC, who is on probation and had scholarship reductions, is going after some PSU players.  A lot of Pac -12 fans are very upset about that.

[grumbler]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=YASWRhCXWKYY

[crazy canuck]

The reason the NCAA had to cite other reasons is because there is nothing in the NCAA rules dealing with this because the NCAA was never set up to take over criminal or civil jurisdiction - and yet that is exactly what they have done.

Nah, those are still in the hands of the court system.

Exactly the point.  The NCAA has penalized conduct which is before the courts and over which the NCAA has no jurisdiction at all.

Just because the criminal process is involved doesn't mean anyone and everyone can't also be involved.

If an employee commits a theft you don't have to wait for the criminal process to take place before firing them.

If an employee commits theft it is a breach of a term of the employment contract.  Please show me what rule the NCAA is enforcing related to the crimes of Sandusky and potentially others.   I suspect you will not be able to find one since the NCAA itself was not able to cite one when they pronounced the punishment.