Penn State Goings-On

[Berkut]

The people who screwed up, for the most part, are no longer the same ones who are still there.

That is almost always the case when it comes to NCAA sanctions.

If the NCAA took this attitude, that they should only punish when the people who are directly responsible are still there, the NCAA would have zero teeth.

Any school could engage in whatever activity they like, knowing that by the time it came to light, chances are good the perpetrators will have moved on - and if not, lord knows that the investigation takes long enough that you can make sure they have moved on by the time it finishes in any case.

The thing the institution is being punished for is not raping kids - it is creating an environment where such a thing (and its cover up) is possible. The NCAA does not simply demand that the school be able to claim indifference or no active part - the demand is that the schools actively foster, create, and maintain an environment where such things cannot happen.

The rules are very specifically setup so that "plausible deniability" cannot be a defense.

Now, perhaps you just don't like the NCAA and their rules, and that is fine. But that is an issue separate from PSU.

Paterno is dead, and the rest of them have mostly been fired (or otherwise forced out).  Some of them are definately going to face criminal charges and end up going to prison.  They, and the school, are going to get their pants sued off.  Those are the appropriate penalties in this situation.  Laws were broken, not NCAA regulations. 

Laws AND NCAA regulations were broken.

The NCAA is a private organization that is, in this case, attempting to usurp the functions of the legal system.

That is just silly. They are not sending anyone to jail. They are not charging anyone with a crime, they are imposing penalties for violating the terms of the agreement that not only did Penn State sign when they joined the NCAA, they are terms that Penn State had a large hand in creating to begin with.

You can argue that the penalties don't fit the infraction, but arguing that Penn State is usurping the functions of the legal system is just crazy talk. Are you really suggesting that because the crime in question is a criminal matter, the NCAA cannot act at all?

What if a coach robbed a bank in order to pay a player to come to their school? Since that is a crime, does the NCAA have no ability to have a say in that matter?

Whereas that same coach using his own money to pay a player to come to their school (not a crime), the NCAA can respond to that?

In a sense, this is almost the same thing that PSU officials did with Sandusky--try to handle the problem internally, instead of letting the courts do their job.

Uhhh, no. Not the same in any way. PSU covered up Sandusky's crime in order to protect their schools reputation and the person and myth of Joe Paterno. That is a direct and clear violation of the NCAA rules.

The NCAA is not motivated by any such thing. The courts will do their job dealing with the *individuals* who have committed crimes, and the NCAA will do its job dealing with the *institution* that violated the rules they agreed to upon joining the NCAA.

[grumbler]

The NCAA is not motivated by any such thing. The courts will do their job dealing with the *individuals* who have committed crimes, and the NCAA will do its job dealing with the *institution* that violated the rules they agreed to upon joining the NCAA.

Indeed.  Had PSU turned in Sandusky when JoPa, Curley, et al got the McQueary report, the NCAA would have taken no action at all.  JoPa and Curley would likely have lost their jobs because they didn't do anything in 1998 except to move Sandusky out of the official program, but the school would have done that, and the NCAA would have applauded.

[crazy canuck]

But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job.  That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".

No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts from doing anything.  You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction.  As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean.  You might have missed it.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

That is what ursurping juridiction means.  Making decisions outside ones jurisdiction...

[sbr]

But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job.  That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".

No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything.  You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction.  As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean.  You might have missed it.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules.  Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.

I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over".  I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do.  I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.

[crazy canuck]

But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job.  That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".

No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything.  You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction.  As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean.  You might have missed it.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules.  Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.

I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over".  I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do.  I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.

I agree that is where one of the debates exists.  However, if one concludes that the NCAA did not have jurisidiction then the only correct conclusion in law is that the NCAA ursurped the jurisdiction of other bodies that do have such jursidiction.

If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.

[Berkut]

Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.

When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."

Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.

And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.

[grumbler]

If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.

  There's a distinction without a difference!

If you usurp someone's jurisdiction, you are taking over jurisdiction.

Luckily for you, neither usurpation nor "take over" applies in this case.  The NCAA is within its jurisdiction, as even Penn State agrees.

[grumbler]

Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.

When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."

Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.

And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.

Michigan already got PSU's fast cornerback recruit.  RR might get some of their current players, though; Michigan has already said they are not interested in those (though UM sure could use a couple DTs or another elitish running back).

[sbr]

But no one had stopped the courts from doing their job.  That is why I had a problem with cc saying "take over".

No one, especially me, said the NCAA ruling was stopping the courts form doing anything.  You, and I suspect Berkut, simply didnt understand the legal argument about jurisdiction.  As a point of clarification this is what I did say in response to your question of what I did mean.  You might have missed it.

In short the NCAA has decided it can find its member institutions guilty of offences outside its jurisdiction and impose penalties based on those findings.

It's debatable whether they were outside of their jurisdiction when you consider the ethics and honesty clauses in the NCAA rules.  Granted, they have never been enforced before but they are still there.

I guess we just disagree on the meaning of "take over".  I think of it as, you know, taking over something from someone else; meaning the NCAA has it and the courts no longer do.  I suppose there may be another definition that works with what you are trying to say.

I agree that is where one of the debates exists.  However, if one concludes that the NCAA did not have jurisidiction then the only correct conclusion in law is that the NCAA ursurped the jurisdiction of other bodies that do have such jursidiction.

If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.

Where did you come to the conclusion that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction?

Would any of these change your mind?

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/20120723/21207235

NCAA Constitution References

2.1 Scope of Responsibility.

The institution's responsibility for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program includes responsibility for the actions of its staff members and for the actions of any other individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.

2.4 The Principle of Sportsmanship and Ethical Conduct.

For intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program. It is the responsibility of each institution to:

(a) Establish policies for sportsmanship and ethical conduct in intercollegiate athletics consistent with the educational mission and goals of the institution; and

(b) Educate, on a continuing basis, all constituencies about the policies in this article.

6.01.1 Institutional Control.

The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.

6.4 Responsibilities for Actions of Outside Entities.

6.4.1 Independent Agencies or Organizations.

An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of an independent agency, corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration, or an athletics department staff member, has knowledge that such agency, corporate entity or other organization is promoting the institution's intercollegiate athletics program.

6.4.2 Representatives of Athletics Interests.

An institution's "responsibility" for the conduct of its intercollegiate athletics program shall include responsibility for the acts of individuals, a corporate entity (e.g., apparel or equipment manufacturer) or other organization when a member of the institution's executive or athletics administration or an athletics department staff member has knowledge or should have knowledge that such an individual, corporate entity or other organization:

(a) Has participated in or is a member of an agency or organization as described in Constitution 6.4.1;

(b) Has made financial contributions to the athletics department or to an athletics booster organization of that institution;

(c) Has been requested by the athletics department staff to assist in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes or is assisting in the recruitment of prospective student-athletes;

(d) Has assisted or is assisting in providing benefits to enrolled student-athletes; or

(e) Is otherwise involved in promoting the institution's athletics program.

6.4.2.1 Agreement to Provide Benefit or Privilege.

Any agreement between an institution (or any organization that promotes, assists or augments in any way the athletics interests of the member institution, including those identified per Constitution 6.4.1) and an individual who, for any consideration, is or may be entitled under the terms of the agreement to any benefit or privilege relating to the institution's athletics program, shall contain a specific clause providing that any such benefit or privilege may be withheld if the individual has engaged in conduct that is determined to be a violation of NCAA legislation. The clause shall provide for the withholding of the benefit or privilege from a party to the agreement and any other person who may be entitled to a benefit or privilege under the terms of the agreement.

6.4.2.2 Retention of Identity as "Representative."

Any individual participating in the activities set forth in Constitution 6.4.2 shall be considered a "representative of the institution's athletics interests," and once so identified as a representative, it is presumed the person retains that identity.
Division I Bylaw References

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.

10.1 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:

(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;

(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;

(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a student-athlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., "runner");

(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;

(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);

(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations;

(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or

(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.

11.1.1 Honesty and Sportsmanship.

Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports. (See Bylaw 10 for more specific ethical-conduct standards.)

11.1.2.1 Responsibility of Head Coach.

It shall be the responsibility of an institution's head coach to promote an atmosphere for compliance within the program supervised by the coach and to monitor the activities regarding compliance of all assistant coaches and other administrators involved with the program who report directly or indirectly to the coach.

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 affirmative 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.
Last Updated: Jul 25, 2012

[Berkut]

Rich Rodrigues stated he was talking to some PSU players.

When asked what kind of players he might be looking for, he said "anybody fast who can play defense."

Oh man, this is going to be an interesting year.

And by interesting, I mean painful and ugly.

Michigan already got PSU's fast cornerback recruit.  RR might get some of their current players, though; Michigan has already said they are not interested in those (though UM sure could use a couple DTs or another elitish running back).

Well, they have a RS freshman LB who RR recruited when he was at Michigan, so I know he is talking to him at the least.

Getting kids to come West is tough, but at least there is a chance since RR is from out there, and hence knows most of these kids and has likely spoken to them in the past. If not RR, then Casteel or one of the other assistants.

[crazy canuck]

If you dont like "take over" the insert ursurp instead.

  There's a distinction without a difference!

If you usurp someone's jurisdiction, you are taking over jurisdiction.

Bonus marks Grumbler.  Glad you agree with me they can mean the same thing.  Too bad you dont understand what the words mean in this context.

[The Minsky Moment]

JR also seems to be of the view that it would be acceptable to remove Penn State football from the NCAA, a more draconian attack than what was imposed.

Not exactly.
My point was more that IF the NCAA really feels that it wants to be the business of punishing supervisory or oversight personnel, then it should do that.  I'm not really taking a position on whether that would really be a good idea to do.

But what I am taking a position is that the  the NCAA should NOT decide that since it can't figure out a way to punish the "bad guys" appropraitely, it is just going to issue a bunch of unrelated sanctions that don't serve any logical goal other than the PR objective of demonstrating how Serious and Outraged the NCAA is.

[MadBurgerMaker]

The usc scholarship penalties are still in effect.

USC is still under their lowered scholarship limit.  They also can't take advantage of the (proposed still?) thing where they can go over the limit this year while giving one up next year.  People complaining about them taking players that they have room for are stupid.

E:  Unless they've added some guys that puts them at the limit.  I don't keep track of them much, but they seem to be rolling with the restrictions pretty well.  Either way, if they're full they can't take more people because that scholarship waiver doesn't apply to them.  If they aren't full, they have room, so what does it matter if get some guys?

E2:  Here you go sbr:  http://usc.rivals.com/content.asp?CID=1388624

If Redd did decide to transfer to USC, he would count towards the class of 2012. All but one 2012 signee has by cleared by the NCAA for enrollment, with wide receiver Darreus Rogers still an academic question mark. Silas could take his spot in the 2012 class, making Rogers an early enrollee candidate for the 2013 class in January.

USC has 18 spots available in the 2013 class with 16 verbal commitments already on board. Friday, Louisville (Ky.) four-star defensive end Jason Hatcher could make that 17 verbals commitments for USC in the 2013 class.

The NCAA is considering allowing teams to go over scholarship limits in 2012 if the school reduces the number of scholarships proportionally the following season. While under sanctions, USC has a total scholarship limitation of 75.

So they're technically at the limit, but one dude is kind of a maybe, so they can make a spot available for Redd if they are so inclined.

[crazy canuck]

Where did you come to the conclusion that the NCAA did not have jurisdiction?

I think we have been over this more than once.

Tell you what you show me where in the wall of text it says a member university is responsible for people in the university who commit criminal acts.  Because if you think that is what it means then Universities just took on a whole bunch of liability they did not have before.

[grumbler]

Well, they have a RS freshman LB who RR recruited when he was at Michigan, so I know he is talking to him at the least.

Getting kids to come West is tough, but at least there is a chance since RR is from out there, and hence knows most of these kids and has likely spoken to them in the past. If not RR, then Casteel or one of the other assistants.

I'd forgotten that Casteel went out to 'Zona.  He'd sure know all those players, and know which ones he really wants.