There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

[VolBeef88]

You are taking the conduct clause out of its context.

Actually it's quite the opposite.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

Actually it's quite the opposite.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Then why are all the violations listed in a completely different section of the rulebook than the clause you keep pointing to? Why would they separate one violation from the others and put it in with clauses that detail the motivation for punishing the expressed violations? It seems odd that they would knowingly remove an expressed violation from the context that would be most appropriate.

 

[VolBeef88]

Then why are all the violations listed in a completely different section of the rulebook than the clause you keep pointing to? Why would they separate one violation from the others and put it in with clauses that detail the motivation for punishing the expressed violations? It seems odd that they would knowingly remove an expressed violation from the context that would be most appropriate.

Because conduct or character clauses are different in nature than "Bylaws of amateur athletics". They are about the institutions leadership NOT the athletes. Therefore they do not belong with the "bylaws" governing amateur athletics. They're 2 different sets of rules for 2 totally different entities. That should be very easy for anyone to comprehend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

Because conduct or character clauses are different in nature than "Bylaws of amateur athletics". They are about the institutions leadership NOT the athletes. Therefore they do not belong with the "bylaws" governing amateur athletics. They're 2 different sets of rules for 2 totally different entities. That should be very easy for anyone to comprehend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Then why isn't there any section or clause that details the potential punishments for violations of the conduct clause?

Look, I'm with you on the idea that the NCAA can act on PSU. Where I disagree with you is that they can do it via the rulebook. The NCAA could easily, and perhaps justifiably, revoke PSU's membership. And in the end, that may be the worst punishment they could possibly dish out.

 

[orangesparkles]

Because conduct or character clauses are different in nature than "Bylaws of amateur athletics". They are about the institutions leadership NOT the athletes. Therefore they do not belong with the "bylaws" governing amateur athletics. They're 2 different sets of rules for 2 totally different entities. That should be very easy for anyone to comprehend.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Are you going to feel silly when the NCAA does nothing to Penn State over this because they can't do anything? I'm not sure how you can possibly think that the bylaws of amateur athletics refers to a different entity.

 

[VolBeef88]

Are you going to feel silly when the NCAA does nothing to Penn State over this because they can't do anything? I'm not sure how you can possibly think that the bylaws of amateur athletics refers to a different entity.

Nothing the NCAA does or does not do would or has surprised me.

There are 2 sets of rules we're talking about. 1 being the rules involving amateur athletic and 2 the rules pertaining to the membership of the NCAA. The reality is there very well maybe and probably are rules of behavior or conduct of members that are not public because NCAA is a private entity and not required to publish them. I sit on 3 boards and the rules of conduct expected of each member of the board is not public.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[vol66]

From the letter to PSU...

"While admittedly, the actions alleged to have occured in this instance are not specifically listed in the bylaw, it is clear that deceitful and dishonest behavior can be found to be unethical conduct."

 

[knucklehead_vol]

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.

Men's College Basketball: Kentucky's Enes Kanter the latest victim of unfair and inconsistent NCAA decisions - ESPN

In my opinion, the NCAA has been terribly inconsistent with their rulings. For example, Kansas guard Josh Selby and Mississippi State forward Renardo Sidney were both penalized for receiving extra benefits. Then, after paying back money, they were re-instated and allowed to play.

Meanwhile, at Ohio State, five football players were punished for selling memorabilia and receiving extra benefits. The penalty was not imposed for this year's bowl game against Arkansas, but for numerous games next season. The NCAA regulates in situations that are totally wacky and there is no consistency.

I think about the situation at Kentucky with their big man, Enes Kanter, whose father turned down offers for millions of dollars just so his son could play college basketball. Compare that to what Cam Newton's father did!

Kanter, at the age of 16, took cash in Turkey that exceeded the amount allotted for expenses, which came out to be around $30,000. Why not let the kid repay those dollars and sit out this season, gaining his eligibility for the 2011-12 campaign?

He took the money because he was involved in a professional league. It was not like the other cases, where the money came from outside sources.

The bottom line is that these athletes all got paid cash but were all handled differently.

I wish there was consistency in the rulings. In don't think Kanter should have been declared permanently ineligible, especially in light of the other punishments.

We are supposed to be in the business of helping kids, not hurting them. Kanter wants to be a student and he should be allowed to play next year. Unfortunately, that will not happen.

It is an absolute nightmare that there is no consistency in the decisions of the NCAA.


Good News for USC: NCAA Makes Inconsistent Ruling, Again - Reign of Troy - A USC Trojans Site - News, Blogs, Opinion and more.

This morning, the NCAA announced five Ohio State players (including star quarterback Terrelle Pryor) will be ineligible for the first five games of the 2011 season for selling some awards and exchanging autographs for tattoos. The suspension seems rather harsh, but if you are a USC fan there is reason to scratch your head.

Although the NCAA came down hard on these players, they will not miss the Sugar Bowl against Arkansas. The NCAA ruled these players ineligible, yet they will be allowed to play in a bowl game. In the Reggie Bush case, USC was given a two year bowl ban for using an ineligible player in two bowls. That ruling was arbitrary and the first of its kind.

In its official release, the NCAA ruled, “NCAA policy allows suspending withholding penalties for a championship or bowl game if it was reasonable at the time the student-athletes were not aware they were committing violations.” This is where the case gets rather outrageous. By the very nature of its findings, the NCAA ruled USC and Reggie Bush should have known about their actions. With the USC case as an example, players around the country should have been on high alert in general. But the Bush debacle isn’t the only case. Earlier in 2010, standout wide receiver A.J. Green of Georgia was suspended four games for selling his jersey for a thousand dollars. The suspension was highly publicized and was just one of several cases that have been floating out there in the media. If Reggie Bush and USC were responsible for knowing, then Ohio State and its players should be held to the exact same standards. They have the benefit of historical cases and living in a time of paranoia. Unless these players have been living in a cave, they would know that selling memorabilia is unacceptable.

And what about this notion of “high profile athlete” that the NCAA imposed upon USC for Reggie Bush. Terrelle Pryor is the most recognizable figure at one of college football’s most storied programs. And he is not required to know the rules? According to Paul Dee and the infractions committee that handled the USC case, high profile athletes require high profile monitoring. By an Ohio State player’s own admission, this tattoo for autograph exchange had been going on since 2001. Furthermore, the punishment is a farce. If he wants, Pryor can play in the Sugar Bowl and head right to the NFL without any consequences for his actions.

As Stewart Mandel of SI points out:

“AD Gene Smith claims the school was “not as explicit with our student-athlete education as we should have been in the 2007-08 and 2008-09 academic years regarding the sale of apparel, awards and gifts issued by the athletics department.”

Since when was ignorance an acceptable response to breaking the rules? The correct answer: once the USC case was finished.

The NCAA hoped to make USC an example and show it wasn’t messing around, but it has undone the message sent by its harsh punishments by creating loopholes in its own rulings. Does the punishment against Ohio State seem rather harsh? Yes. But the severity isn’t the issue. The fact that the NCAA is cherry-picking which games the players can miss doesn’t make sense.

To have the sanctions reduced, USC must prove the NCAA made procedural errors. The Ohio State case gives the Trojans ammunition because of the inconsistencies between the rulings. Proceed with cautious optimism. Today’s findings certainly appear to help USC, but when the NCAA is the appellate judge, the jury, the prosecutor, it is impossible to predict what they will do with the appeal.


Ohio State suspensions fuel negative feelings toward NCAA - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

You have every reason to be puzzled as to why five Ohio State players -- most notably stars Terrelle Pryor, Dan Herron and DeVier Posey -- will be suspended for the first five games of next season for selling various rings, awards and apparel, yet will be allowed to play in the Jan. 4 Sugar Bowl against Arkansas.

If you're an Ohio State fan, you have every reason to be confused about why former star Troy Smith was suspended for the 2004 Alamo Bowl for receiving $500 from a booster while the aforementioned five will suit up despite pocketing between $1,000 to $2,500 from some other nefarious figure.

If you're a Georgia fan, you have every reason to be miffed that receiver A.J. Green had to sit the first four games of this season for a very similar transgression (selling a game-worn jersey) while the offending Buckeyes sold some of their stuff more than a year earlier yet never missed a game.

And if you're just a general college football fan, you have every reason to be puzzled, outraged and perhaps even despondent that the NCAA came down harder on Ohio State players for selling rings than it did on Heisman winner Cam Newton, whose father shopped Newton's signature for $180,000.

Just nine days away from the New Year, this Ohio State mess marks the latest chapter in an unusually busy year for the NCAA's enforcement division. From the USC/Reggie Bush sanctions to the North Carolina agent suspensions to Bruce Pearl, Tom Izzo and Newton, the headlines have been never-ending.

In the heavily layered NCAA bureaucracy, however, different personnel groups handle infractions cases (USC, Tennessee basketball), agent issues (Georgia, UNC), Basketball Focus Group (Izzo) and athlete eligibility reinstatement (Newton, Ohio State).

It's no wonder the rules and the punishments seem so wildly inconsistent.

Read more: Ohio State suspensions fuel negative feelings toward NCAA - Stewart Mandel - SI.com

 

[bamawriter]

Nothing the NCAA does or does not do would or has surprised me.

There are 2 sets of rules we're talking about. 1 being the rules involving amateur athletic and 2 the rules pertaining to the membership of the NCAA. The reality is there very well maybe and probably are rules of behavior or conduct of members that are not public because NCAA is a private entity and not required to publish them. I sit on 3 boards and the rules of conduct expected of each member of the board is not public.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

Actually, you are wrong about the NCAA's rules. They have to be made public for two reasons:

#1: Public institutions, such as public college and universities, cannot enter into agreements that can be kept from the public. So, whatever a public institution agrees to in its contract with the NCAA has to be public.

#2: The Federal government has exempted the NCAA from various anti-trust laws since, as a private entity, they serve a purpose that the government might otherwise have to oversee. Part of that anti-trust exemption requires the NCAA to keep all of their bylaws public.

So, there is no rule, bylaw, agreement, or understanding that the NCAA has with its membership that isn't published for the public's perusal.

 

[bamawriter]

From the letter to PSU...

"While admittedly, the actions alleged to have occured in this instance are not specifically listed in the bylaw, it is clear that deceitful and dishonest behavior can be found to be unethical conduct."

As I stated to beef, what punishments are listed for unethical behavior? No one has questioned the existence of that clause, only the ability of the NCAA to act on it.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

Actually, you are wrong about the NCAA's rules. They have to be made public for two reasons:

#1: Public institutions, such as public college and universities, cannot enter into agreements that can be kept from the public. So, whatever a public institution agrees to in its contract with the NCAA has to be public.

#2: The Federal government has exempted the NCAA from various anti-trust laws since, as a private entity, they serve a purpose that the government might otherwise have to oversee. Part of that anti-trust exemption requires the NCAA to keep all of their bylaws public.

So, there is no rule, bylaw, agreement, or understanding that the NCAA has with its membership that isn't published for the public's perusal.

Are you really gonna keep arguing that the NCAA is a reasonable body? They aren't and I think you should know that. I think they construe this in any way they want to, it doesn't that mean they will, but they could.

 

[bamawriter]

Sorry, knucklehead, I'm not sure what you're getting at. No one is doubting the arbitrary nature of the NCAA's enforcement of the rules, but every case you mentioned deals with a violation of an expressed rule. From what we know at this moment, PSU did not violate any expressed rule. There is a difference between arbitrary enforcement and arbitrary authority.

 

[VolBeef88]

Actually, you are wrong about the NCAA's rules. They have to be made public for two reasons:

#1: Public institutions, such as public college and universities, cannot enter into agreements that can be kept from the public. So, whatever a public institution agrees to in its contract with the NCAA has to be public.

#2: The Federal government has exempted the NCAA from various anti-trust laws since, as a private entity, they serve a purpose that the government might otherwise have to oversee. Part of that anti-trust exemption requires the NCAA to keep all of their bylaws public.

So, there is no rule, bylaw, agreement, or understanding that the NCAA has with its membership that isn't published for the public's perusal.

Try to get the State Chamber of commerce conduct rules. And I guarantee you most if not ALL universities are State Chamber members. I'm a member of 4 state chambers and there are Universities as members of each.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[vol66]

As I stated to beef, what punishments are listed for unethical behavior? No one has questioned the existence of that clause, only the ability of the NCAA to act on it.

What? Emmert quotes the NCAA constitution in his letter, and then uses the bylaws that were written after the said constitution to back up his broad stance which seems to be...you might not have broken a rule, but your conduct reflects poorly on us all, yer house better be clean 'cause we're gonna come take a look.

 

[bamawriter]

Are you really gonna keep arguing that the NCAA is a reasonable body? They aren't and I think you should know that. I think they construe this in any way they want to, it doesn't that mean they will, but they could.

No one knows better than a Bama fan that the NCAA is often unreasonable and inconsistent. But you are trying to argue that differing punishments for similar violations is tantamount to making rules up out of thin air, and I disagree.

 

[bamawriter]

Try to get the State Chamber of commerce conduct rules. And I guarantee you most if not ALL universities are State Chamber members. I'm a member of 4 state chambers and there are Universities as members of each.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

If a public institution has a contract with the Chamber of Commerce, all you have to do is submit a written request for the details of the contract. The CoCs waive their right to the confidentiality of their agreements if they choose to do business with the State or one of the State's institutions.

 

[bamawriter]

What? Emmert quotes the NCAA constitution in his letter, and then uses the bylaws that were written after the said constitution to back up his broad stance which seems to be...you might not have broken a rule, but your conduct reflects poorly on us all, yer house better be clean 'cause we're gonna come take a look.

So they use the behavior as a pretext for taking a look at PSU. That isn't the same as punishing PSU for the behavior, wouldn't you agree?

 

[knucklehead_vol]

No one knows better than a Bama fan that the NCAA is often unreasonable and inconsistent. But you are trying to argue that differing punishments for similar violations is tantamount to making rules up out of thin air, and I disagree.

Cleary there was lack of institutional control and it benefited the football program by not reporting sandusky (and yes I refuse to capitalize his name). That is not pulling things out of thin air. Do you think if this would have happened in another dept, where Paterno didn't care as much about, this still would have not been reported? I would think probably. If not, then the university would absolutely deserve whatever they got.

Yes I think the NCAA can validate themselves with whatever. I think if Penn State does not self impose anything, then they will step in. No death penalty, but they will step in, imo.

 

[vol66]

So they use the behavior as a pretext for taking a look at PSU. That isn't the same as punishing PSU for the behavior, wouldn't you agree?

I think you're splitting hairs. It didn't matter that they came for Kiffin and left with Pearl. That's what they do, this time their "tip" came from Freeh.

 

[VolBeef88]

If a public institution has a contract with the Chamber of Commerce, all you have to do is submit a written request for the details of the contract. The CoCs waive their right to the confidentiality of their agreements if they choose to do business with the State or one of the State's institutions.

Sure you can FOIA the individual schools. But that's not what I said. FOIA is not the same as "voluntarily making public the info". What you state takes action on the individuals part. Hell man why in the hell do you think FOIA exists?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[bamawriter]

Cleary there was lack of institutional control and it benefited the football program by not reporting sandusky (and yes I refuse to capitalize his name). That is not pulling things out of thin air. Do you think if this would have happened in another dept, where Paterno didn't care as much about, this still would have not been reported? I would think probably. If not, then the university would absolutely deserve whatever they got.

Yes I think the NCAA can validate themselves with whatever. I think if Penn State does not self impose anything, then they will step in. No death penalty, but they will step in, imo.

There's the rub. There is no way to show a competitive advantage was gained from these actions. Maybe Paterno thought it would cause a disadvantage if Sandusky was exposed, but there is absolutely no way to know with even minimal certainty whether he was right or wrong. They didn't pay a kid to come to PSU. They kept the criminal behavior of a former assistant coach hidden from the authorities and from the public. There is simply no way to quantify what kind of advantage they might have gained from their actions.

 

[knucklehead_vol]

There's the rub. There is no way to show a competitive advantage was gained from these actions. Maybe Paterno thought it would cause a disadvantage if Sandusky was exposed, but there is absolutely no way to know with even minimal certainty whether he was right or wrong. They didn't pay a kid to come to PSU. They kept the criminal behavior of a former assistant coach hidden from the authorities and from the public. There is simply no way to quantify what kind of advantage they might have gained from their actions.

Clearly there was or then he would have been reported. The advantage was to not have a disadvantage.

But a monkey wrench, what if paterno was involved more than the cover up? sandusky didn't wake up in 1998 and poof he was a pedophile.

 

[bamawriter]

I think you're splitting hairs. It didn't matter that they came for Kiffin and left with Pearl. That's what they do, this time their "tip" came from Freeh.

Actually, the letter was sent 8 months before the Freeh report was published, and there is nothing in the Freeh report that could be considered an NCAA violation. So the Freeh report is not the issue.

The NCAA could take the opportunity to start looking for violations based on what was clearly a toxic environment at PSU, and they probably ought to. But what if they find nothing more than what is already known?

 

[bamawriter]

Sure you can FOIA the individual schools. But that's not what I said. FOIA is not the same as "voluntarily making public the info". What you state takes action on the individuals part. Hell man why in the hell do you think FOIA exists?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

A chamber of commerce doesn't fall under the second piece I listed before. They do not have anti-trust exemptions, so they don't have to publish their agreements with the State, they simply have to provide them if they are requested.

The NCAA must publish the details of their agreements. If it turned out that the NCAA had secret agreements, it would be one of the largest anti-trust cluster****s in the history of the American judicial system.

 

[bamawriter]

Clearly there was or then he would have been reported. The advantage was to not have a disadvantage.

We don't know that there would have been a disadvantage, we can simply assume that Paterno thought there might be. I'll continue to argue that they would have gained a greater advantage by turning Sandusky in, but I can't be sure of that either.

But a monkey wrench, what if paterno was involved more than the cover up? sandusky didn't wake up in 1998 and poof he was a pedophile.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Can you clarify?