There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

[vol66]

LOIC refers only to the institution's handling of NCAA violations. Since child rape isn't an NCAA violation, the school's response cannot be considered LOIC.

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. It seems that if there was no impermissable phone call, something to open the door, that some folks don't think the NCAA can or should have a method to ensure that member institutions comply with it's ethics and standards.

Who, in their right mind, could legislate this before it happens?

Yes, the criminal courts have a place, as do the civil courts and the appellate courts will too. The NCAA should as well because the cover up involved a college president, administrators and coaches at an NCAA institution.

To say that no NCAA rule/violation occurred in this instance simply means one adheres to the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

 

[VolBeef88]

In universities the president is subservient/below the board of trustees; he's correct on that... they might even able to choose/select him (actually I'm fairly certain they can/do)

It's why - if you'd like some sports examples - the presidents have to get the board's approval for conference changes, why the president has to have the board give him the authority/power to seek/negotiate with other conferences, and why - when the FSU board chairman went on about how he could guarantee necessary votes to move the school if he wanted - it made the FSU president look like a powerless puppet in the matter (he spent less than a day before going public that they were committed to the ACC)


If you're saying the VP and Pres are both high up there then yeah sure, but if you're claiming those two are the very top/higher than the school's board, that would be incorrect. (leaving it open in case I've misunderstood this statement)

Presidents, VP's and chancellors are definitely considered top leadership of the University and actually are charged with running the University. The BOT are made up of people from various regions of the state usually selected or appointed by the states governor with the responsibility of oversight of the University and the Universities leadership. The BOT does not "run" the University they have oversight. So no, I'm not wrong.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TrueOrange]

To keep the football team and program from suffering any repercussions. Look, whatever happens, happens and it really doesn't matter to me. But isn't this possible? We are talking about the NCAA, basically a rogue group thats makes things up as they go. USC should NOT have gotten what they did, no matter the hatred for them.

USC got what they did because they (as a whole) kept lying to the investigators thinking they could get away with it / that they were bigger than those investigating them...same way continually lying to the cops (& having them find out otherwise, not from you) will exacerbate one's charges/punishment

 

[bamawriter]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. It seems that if there was no impermissable phone call, something to open the door, that some folks don't think the NCAA can or should have a method to ensure that member institutions comply with it's ethics and standards.

Who, in their right mind, could legislate this before it happens?

Yes, the criminal courts have a place, as do the civil courts and the appellate courts will too. The NCAA should as well because the cover up involved a college president, administrators and coaches at an NCAA institution.

To say that no NCAA rule/violation occurred in this instance simply means one adheres to the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

Except the spirit of the NCAA bylaws doesn't stretch into the world of law enforcement. The NCAA exists to enforce a set of rules that aren't covered by any federal or state law. If there were laws that protected amateurism and fair play, the NCAA wouldn't be necessary. The flip side of that is the NCAA doesn't need to punish lawbreakers, because that's handled by the State.

Naturally, the NCAA bylaws do not encourage criminal behavior. What these degenerates at PSU did is not good for the game in any sense of the word. But the NCAA doesn't simply get to choose whether or not they want to punish something, that they don't actually have authority over, simply because it's bad for the game. The NCAA is already completely arbitrary in the enforcement of their bylaws; it would be a disaster if they could suddenly be arbitrary in assigning themselves authority that is not expressly given to them in the bylaws.

 

[bamawriter]

To keep the football team and program from suffering any repercussions. Look, whatever happens, happens and it really doesn't matter to me. But isn't this possible? We are talking about the NCAA, basically a rogue group thats makes things up as they go. USC should NOT have gotten what they did, no matter the hatred for them.

Nothing about the NCAA surprises me. They could certainly insert themselves into this mess, and I wouldn't be shocked. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't, because they don't have the expressed authority to do so.

 

[VolBeef88]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree. It seems that if there was no impermissable phone call, something to open the door, that some folks don't think the NCAA can or should have a method to ensure that member institutions comply with it's ethics and standards.

Who, in their right mind, could legislate this before it happens?

Yes, the criminal courts have a place, as do the civil courts and the appellate courts will too. The NCAA should as well because the cover up involved a college president, administrators and coaches at an NCAA institution.

To say that no NCAA rule/violation occurred in this instance simply means one adheres to the letter, but not the spirit of the law.

bamawriter doesn't want to accept that as a member organization the NCAA has a character clause that requires certain level of moral behavior as to not shine bad light on the member organization. The "Character" clause is a catch all exactly for the reason you state. They can't write bylaws for every single bad action that could occur. So in other words, you're correct.
Now will the NCAA do anything? Who knows, nothing would surprise me about them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[knucklehead_vol]

USC got what they did because they (as a whole) kept lying to the investigators thinking they could get away with it / that they were bigger than those investigating them...same way continually lying to the cops (& having them find out otherwise, not from you) will exacerbate one's charges/punishment

How do you know? The only proof they had was the coach that recruited him and it was argued no one else knew anything about it and I believe he even admitted to it.

'The committee cited a lack of institutional control, impermissible inducements, extra benefits, exceeding coach staff limits, and unethical conduct by an assistant football coach. The penalties, some of which were self-imposed by the university, also include four years' probation, vacation of regular and postseason wins for all three involved sports; scholarship reductions for basketball and recruiting restrictions.'

The bold is what USC football, and seems to be what Penn State did. The other is the basketball including the bold.

But one thing USC did was to erase all things having to do with Bush. He even gave the Heisman back, which had nothing to do with his benefits he received. So should Penn State follow suit?

But regardless, PSU is ****ed. Between the lawsuits and PR they are going to spend to repair their image, it is gonna hurt them. ANd they will get some sort of violations from the DOE I would think as well as self impose penalties. Also, I would think the Big 10 will do something, they are all about image.

 

[vol66]

Except the spirit of the NCAA bylaws doesn't stretch into the world of law enforcement. The NCAA exists to enforce a set of rules that aren't covered by any federal or state law. If there were laws that protected amateurism and fair play, the NCAA wouldn't be necessary. The flip side of that is the NCAA doesn't need to punish lawbreakers, because that's handled by the State.

Naturally, the NCAA bylaws do not encourage criminal behavior. What these degenerates at PSU did is not good for the game in any sense of the word. But the NCAA doesn't simply get to choose whether or not they want to punish something, that they don't actually have authority over, simply because it's bad for the game. The NCAA is already completely arbitrary in the enforcement of their bylaws; it would be a disaster if they could suddenly be arbitrary in assigning themselves authority that is not expressly given to them in the bylaws.

I think Emmert is a pretty smart guy. He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to send out a letter to an institution for the sole purpose of puffing his chest out. He seems to think the NCAA needs to be involved and he lists the bylaws that he feels PSU might not be in compliance with. We'll see.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Nothing about the NCAA surprises me. They could certainly insert themselves into this mess, and I wouldn't be shocked. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't, because they don't have the expressed authority to do so.

I agree with this, but they can interpret rules, laws, and bylaws how they see fit unfortunately. But, Penn State honestly has many more things to worry about than what the NCAA does imo.

 

[bamawriter]

bamawriter doesn't want to accept that as a member organization the NCAA has a character clause that requires certain level of moral behavior as to not shine bad light on the member organization. The "Character" clause is a catch all exactly for the reason you state. They can't write bylaws for every single bad action that could occur. So in other words, you're correct.
Now will the NCAA do anything? Who knows, nothing would surprise me about them.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

"Catch all" clauses very rarely hold up in court. And you're still wrong about the character clause, since organizations can neither be moral or immoral, only the individuals who comprise them.

That, and the clause that you call a "catch all" has nothing to do with violations, so it would be hard to make it apply.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

I think Emmert is a pretty smart guy. He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to send out a letter to an institution for the sole purpose of puffing his chest out. He seems to think the NCAA needs to be involved and he lists the bylaws that he feels PSU might not be in compliance with. We'll see.

Most of the analysis I have seen comes to the conclusion that he blew it with the letter. Basically painted himself into a corner of taking some sort of action before investigating fully.

 

[bamawriter]

I agree with this, but they can interpret rules, laws, and bylaws how they see fit unfortunately.

No, actually they can't.

 

[VolBeef88]

Nothing about the NCAA surprises me. They could certainly insert themselves into this mess, and I wouldn't be shocked. What I'm saying is that they shouldn't, because they don't have the expressed authority to do so.

As a member organization they most certainly have the right to require a certain level of behavior by the members of their organization. The NCAA is a voluntary organization made up by Universities and colleges. If a member institution exhibits acts or behavior that shines negative light on the Organization (the rest of the member institutions) they have every right to act in the best interests of the organization. To think otherwise is foolish.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

I think Emmert is a pretty smart guy. He doesn't seem to be the kind of guy to send out a letter to an institution for the sole purpose of puffing his chest out. He seems to think the NCAA needs to be involved and he lists the bylaws that he feels PSU might not be in compliance with. We'll see.

I think the letter was done to express the NCAA's concern as to how PSU let themselves get to the point where the head football coach could do whatever he wanted.

Given the rogue nature of PSU football, the NCAA may well poke around, and they may well find some legit violations. The same thing happened with Baylor basketball. But just like Baylor basketball, I think the NCAA wants to stay out of the criminal aspect, because nothing good can come from their involvement.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

No, actually they can't.

Really? That was a sarcastic really.

 

[bamawriter]

As a member organization they most certainly have the right to require a certain level of behavior by the members of their organization. The NCAA is a voluntary organization made up by Universities and colleges. If a member institution exhibits acts or behavior that shines negative light on the Organization (the rest of the member institutions) they have every right to act in the best interests of the organization. To think otherwise is foolish.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

But they can only be punished for violations of the bylaws. If the members think that PSU's behavior reflects poorly on them, they could revoke PSU's membership. What they cannot do is punish PSU according the bylaws for actions that are not violations of the bylaws that every single member agreed to. PSU has the same contract with the NCAA that every other member has.

 

[bamawriter]

Really? That was a sarcastic really.

Contract law doesn't leave a ton of room for interpretation. The NCAA bylaws are extremely thorough, and extremely specific. The NCAA can't simply say "if we'd thought this was a possibility, we'd have written it into the bylaws, so we're going to punish it." Either it's there or it's not.

 

[VolBeef88]

"Catch all" clauses very rarely hold up in court. And you're still wrong about the character clause, since organizations can neither be moral or immoral, only the individuals who comprise them.

That, and the clause that you call a "catch all" has nothing to do with violations, so it would be hard to make it apply.

You're just wrong. When the civil suit is either settled or adjudicated you can bet all you have that PSU will write the checks. One of the many responsibilities of the BOT is to select the leadership of the university and thus the leadership in the eyes of the law is the university thus the university is liable for the leaderships action or in this case lack thereof. If that was not the case then only CEO's and other leaders of companies would get sued instead of the corps themselves. But as you know that's not the case.
And a character clause would most definitely hold up in court. Especially since the NCAA is a private "club" if you will and has the right to self impose rules of behavior.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Contract law doesn't leave a ton of room for interpretation. The NCAA bylaws are extremely thorough, and extremely specific. The NCAA can't simply say "if we'd thought this was a possibility, we'd have written it into the bylaws, so we're going to punish it." Either it's there or it's not.

I disagree. I think there is a lot of room for interpretation and that's part of the reason for the vagueness. That's my opinion though.

 

[vol66]

I think the letter was done to express the NCAA's concern as to how PSU let themselves get to the point where the head football coach could do whatever he wanted.

Given the rogue nature of PSU football, the NCAA may well poke around, and they may well find some legit violations. The same thing happened with Baylor basketball. But just like Baylor basketball, I think the NCAA wants to stay out of the criminal aspect, because nothing good can come from their involvement.

Not you necessarily, but people are thinking in a very narrow way. The Freeh report mentions the NCAA a few times. One of the recomendations has to do with the compliance(or lack there of) office, the need for more employees etc...from an article I read...

"The report finds that Penn State's compliance office was, and still is, "decentralized" and "significantly understaffed." More often, compliance checks were carried out by the separate Office of Internal Audits. Charles Robinson, who knows a thing or two about NCAA investigations, says a weak compliance office is often a sign of the NCAA's all-purpose boogeyman "Institutional Control."

 

[bamawriter]

You're just wrong. When the civil suit is either settled or adjudicated you can bet all you have that PSU will write the checks. One of the many responsibilities of the BOT is to select the leadership of the university and thus the leadership in the eyes of the law is the university thus the university is liable for the leaderships action or in this case lack thereof. If that was not the case then only CEO's and other leaders of companies would get sued instead of the corps themselves. But as you know that's not the case.

I agree with this, and have said it repeatedly in this thread. But that's civil law, and has nothing to do with the NCAA.

And a character clause would most definitely hold up in court. Especially since the NCAA is a private "club" if you will and has the right to self impose rules of behavior.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Those rules are called "bylaws" and they've already been agreed to and imposed. They are often amended, usually on an annual basis, but they aren't retroactively applicable. The NCAA can punish violations of those rules, but they cannot punish bad behavior that is not detailed in the bylaws. What should or shouldn't be against the rules is irrelevant. What is or isn't is all that matters.

 

[VolBeef88]

I disagree. I think there is a lot of room for interpretation and that's part of the reason for the vagueness. That's my opinion though.

You're correct and he's wrong. The LAST thing you do as an organization is paint yourself into a corner.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[VolBeef88]

I agree with this, and have said it repeatedly in this thread. But that's civil law, and has nothing to do with the NCAA.



Those rules are called "bylaws" and they've already been agreed to and imposed. They are often amended, usually on an annual basis, but they aren't retroactively applicable. The NCAA can punish violations of those rules, but they cannot punish bad behavior that is not detailed in the bylaws. What should or shouldn't be against the rules is irrelevant. What is or isn't is all that matters.

The bylaws of which you speak is not the same as conduct required by members.
And you're the one that stated "the members are individuals not the university". And if they punish PSU and if PSU takes the NCAA to court PSU will lose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

I disagree. I think there is a lot of room for interpretation and that's part of the reason for the vagueness. That's my opinion though.

What vagueness? There is nothing vague about the NCAA bylaws. You're focusing on an ethic clause that isn't detailing a violation. That clause is one of several saying "here's WHY we're going to punish you if you break the rules." It isn't not a rule in and of itself.

Think of it like this: why is it wrong for a coach to give money to a recruit? Because it's unethical, and is against the principles of amateurism. As such, it should be punished. That clause and those around it are explaining why the expressed rules matter.

The NCAA isn't suggesting that it is going to punish any and all unethical behavior. If that clause were actually some sort of "catch all" rule, then the NCAA could punish coaches for using foul language at practice.

 

[bamawriter]

The bylaws of which you speak is not the same as conduct required by members.
And you're the one that stated "the members are individuals not the university". And if they punish PSU and if PSU takes the NCAA to court PSU will lose.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

You are taking the conduct clause out of its context.