|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 9:46:08 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a precedent that has been set, is completely written within the NCAA rules, and unfortunately has to be in place. If a school could constantly "cheat", knowing that only the player would be held accountable- then the school would have no reason to discontinue these actions. Regardless of the other people on the team- they were (maybe unknowingly) participating with someone who cheated to help them win. With Sandusky- there is/was no connection to the players and him fûcking kids in the butt had no bearing on them winning or losing games. They won with him and won without him. There was no written rule or precedent for the NCAA to take action as it was a criminal matter... He broke criminal rules. Paterno turning a blind eye was enabling criminal activity- not activity that was directly intended to give PSU an unfair advantage on the football field. But there was a connection between Sandusky and the Program. AFTER he was caught, he was allowed to use the PSU facilities for his camps, which were grooming opportunities, and he maintained an office in the athletic building. PSU knew, and JP knew, there was a predator in their midst, and yet they did nothing to stop it, because they did not want to harm JP's legacy. So while there may not have been a connection to wins and losses, there was a clear relationship between Sandusky and the PSU Football program. So the "didn't involve the program" mantra is not quite accurate. And we don't think PSU turned a blind eye because the camps were also soft recruiting opportunities? That seems naive. So by this logic then- it goes back to my Ford comparison earlier. Where do you draw a line in the sand between punishing those guilty of direct involvement versus ancillary punishment for those in indirect proximity?
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 9:48:11 GMT -5
But there was a connection between Sandusky and the Program. AFTER he was caught, he was allowed to use the PSU facilities for his camps, which were grooming opportunities, and he maintained an office in the athletic building. PSU knew, and JP knew, there was a predator in their midst, and yet they did nothing to stop it, because they did not want to harm JP's legacy. So while there may not have been a connection to wins and losses, there was a clear relationship between Sandusky and the PSU Football program. So the "didn't involve the program" mantra is not quite accurate. And we don't think PSU turned a blind eye because the camps were also soft recruiting opportunities? That seems naive. And just so I understand your logic-it's ok for NCAA to issue a punishment that punishes innocent athletes if they have issued that kind of punishment for the act before, but it's not not fair for the NCAA to issue a punishment that affects an innocent athlete if the NCAA has not punished that conduct before. Umm, where do you think precedent comes from? It starts from taking action. All precedent has a starting point. As for whether it violates the rules-it does, because of the broad mandate the NCAA has given itself to regulate conduct of the programs generally. See my post before this one
|
|
|
Post by The Hoff on Jan 18, 2015 9:59:33 GMT -5
But there was a connection between Sandusky and the Program. AFTER he was caught, he was allowed to use the PSU facilities for his camps, which were grooming opportunities, and he maintained an office in the athletic building. PSU knew, and JP knew, there was a predator in their midst, and yet they did nothing to stop it, because they did not want to harm JP's legacy. So while there may not have been a connection to wins and losses, there was a clear relationship between Sandusky and the PSU Football program. So the "didn't involve the program" mantra is not quite accurate. And we don't think PSU turned a blind eye because the camps were also soft recruiting opportunities? That seems naive. So by this logic then- it goes back to my Ford comparison earlier. Where do you draw a line in the sand between punishing those guilty of direct involvement versus ancillary punishment for those in indirect proximity? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the PROGRAM was punished because those in charge of the PROGRAM covered up the wrongful conduct AND enabled it to continue. If Ford execs turn a blind eye to a safety issue, I have no problem with the FTC shutting them down if that happens.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 10:17:16 GMT -5
So by this logic then- it goes back to my Ford comparison earlier. Where do you draw a line in the sand between punishing those guilty of direct involvement versus ancillary punishment for those in indirect proximity? You seem to be ignoring the fact that the PROGRAM was punished because those in charge of the PROGRAM covered up the wrongful conduct AND enabled it to continue. If Ford execs turn a blind eye to a safety issue, I have no problem with the FTC shutting them down if that happens. PSU didn't do something that jeopardized the safety of the fans or players on the field. So a safety issue being ignored by Ford is a bigger deal IMO- than an isolated criminal using Ford as the back drop for his own devious ways to rape children. The ONLY reason it is worse is because we are taking about endangering millions of lives versus sexual abuse of a handful of boys. It's not a good comparison and doesn't mirror up with the theoretical one I made myself. Also- we are in disagreement as to what extent the "program" was involved. Did the program receive any benefit from this? I think it would be a very difficult argument to make that it did. Unless the program benefitted from one man raping boys- then the program should not be punished as a whole. Instead- only those involved in the criminal action should be
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 10:33:00 GMT -5
Criminal matter, not football.
|
|
|
Post by 4intheair on Jan 18, 2015 10:56:11 GMT -5
I guess if the ncaa wants to identify the coach with the most wins in its history as a guy who enabled child molestation it is their prerogative.
|
|
|
Post by fastfreddie on Jan 18, 2015 11:58:05 GMT -5
[/quote]PSU didn't do something that jeopardized the safety of the fans.. . [/quote]
Fuck you, he'll yes they did!
|
|
|
Post by gobluegirl on Jan 18, 2015 12:10:37 GMT -5
I was and am appalled at how my University handled the Gibbons matter. Shameful. It is not "oh well, life goes on." The university and police dropped the ball and a rapist went free and was allowed to play until the last game of his career. I was livid. If nothing else, I know that because of it that policy not only at U of M, but at universities across the country have changed their policy regarding how they investigate sexual assaults. Now what is tricky is what the football staff should have done about it. they had a player accused of a crime but no charges ever filed. My opinion he should have been kicked off the team immediately. but then you would have people in an uproar accusing the coach/program playing the role of judge and jury in when local law enforcement declined to prosecute. So it's tricky for UM on how the football staff could have better handled the situation... But with PSU it's pretty cut and dry that all their football wins under JoePa should forever be stricken from record books? Do you see what you are doing here? The difference between PSU and U of M is that with U of M, law enforcement was involved. The program deferred their decision to law enforcement and what they were or were not going to do about it. Not enough in my opinion, but they based their decision on the outcome of the authorities, who did not bring any charges. That said, Gibbons still should have been booted. With PSU, there was NO police involvement. Because PSU never called the police. They didn't report it to the authorities. They covered it up and allowed Sandusky to carry business as usual with all those young boys. And because of it. Dozens of young boys were molested. HUGE difference between PSU and UM, IMO.
|
|
reggie
All-Pavel Datsyuk
Posts: 895
|
Post by reggie on Jan 18, 2015 12:49:13 GMT -5
joe, would you say having your defensive coordinator under investigation for child molestation helps or hurts a program? or is it neutral because, hey, not a football problem?
|
|
waxing
All-Andre Drummond
Posts: 177
|
Post by waxing on Jan 18, 2015 12:52:03 GMT -5
This conversation needs to be less about the specifics of the Sandusky case and more about the NCAA and it's (lack of) ability to effectively govern major college athletics.
The NCAA today has no power to enforce punishments on individuals other than to remove eligibility to participate as players/coaches. So they punish the programs too, in hopes of using fear to keep everyone in line. Because they have to do something or they become completely irrelevant in terms of being an enforcement body.
Maybe the NCAA needs to sue the actual wrongdoers in civil court instead of punishing programs with record book alterations and scholarship reductions after the fact? What would the NCAA do with lawsuit winnings / settlements - distribute them among the schools not involved?
I've never liked the idea of scholarship reductions. Sure it weakens the targeted program, but what it really does is cheat the bottom of the overall pool of scholarship athletes out of money that they'll never ever see. So instead of having 1001 total scholarship athletes across all schools, there are 1000 when a scholly is deleted. The guy/gal it really hurts is that 1001st athlete that would have had a scholly at SportsInferno St., but instead has to pay their own way to walk on someplace or go down a level, etc.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 14:31:14 GMT -5
NCAA shouldn't be policing molestation or alleged raping.
|
|
waxing
All-Andre Drummond
Posts: 177
|
Post by waxing on Jan 18, 2015 14:56:38 GMT -5
Correct. But the NCAA should be able to punish people and programs that run afoul of community and university established standards.
The NCAA only exists because the universities want it to. The NCAA only imposes penalties because the universities want it to.
The NCAA isn't a police agency and doesn't pretend to be. They impose penalties in a (not very effective) way to have some kind of checks and balances system among universities.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 15:03:04 GMT -5
Correct. But the NCAA should be able to punish people and programs that run afoul of community and university established standards. The NCAA only exists because the universities want it to. The NCAA only imposes penalties because the universities want it to. The NCAA isn't a police agency and doesn't pretend to be. They impose penalties in a (not very effective) way to have some kind of checks and balances system among universities. Don't care.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 16:53:45 GMT -5
Correct. But the NCAA should be able to punish people and programs that run afoul of community and university established standards. The NCAA only exists because the universities want it to. The NCAA only imposes penalties because the universities want it to. The NCAA isn't a police agency and doesn't pretend to be. They impose penalties in a (not very effective) way to have some kind of checks and balances system among universities. Don't care. The universities created the NCAA to do the role they tasked them with. If the universities don't want the NCAA, they could just get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by flemgoblue on Jan 18, 2015 17:15:55 GMT -5
NCAA shouldn't be policing molestation or alleged raping. it happened in a football facility. The NCAA can do whatever it wants in regards to the record book and a program moving forward anyway.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 19:18:10 GMT -5
The universities created the NCAA to do the role they tasked them with. If the universities don't want the NCAA, they could just get rid of it. So it's either police the record book on child rapes or no ncaa? That's pretty reasonable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 19:19:20 GMT -5
NCAA shouldn't be policing molestation or alleged raping. it happened in a football facility. The NCAA can do whatever it wants in regards to the record book and a program moving forward anyway. Don't disagree, just my opinion.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 19:30:56 GMT -5
The universities created the NCAA to do the role they tasked them with. If the universities don't want the NCAA, they could just get rid of it. So it's either police the record book on child rapes or no ncaa? That's pretty reasonable. You're the one who said you don't care in response to the fact they were created to perform their function.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 20:23:57 GMT -5
So it's either police the record book on child rapes or no ncaa? That's pretty reasonable. You're the one who said you don't care in response to the fact they were created to perform their function. My point is that this isn't their function. Keep up.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 21:50:50 GMT -5
You're the one who said you don't care in response to the fact they were created to perform their function. My point is that this isn't their function. Keep up. Keep up, it is. It's why they were created.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 22:02:11 GMT -5
My point is that this isn't their function. Keep up. Keep up, it is. It's why they were created. To referee child rape cases? I think that's for law enforcement. They can worry about other things. Keep up.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 22:08:28 GMT -5
Keep up, it is. It's why they were created. To referee child rape cases? I think that's for law enforcement. They can worry about other things. Keep up. To monitor and discipline the member university for not upholding ethical standards they set. Why is this so hard for you to grasp. They set up the NCAA to perform that function. They have them the power. If they don't want them doing it, they can just change it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 22:09:42 GMT -5
To referee child rape cases? I think that's for law enforcement. They can worry about other things. Keep up. To monitor and discipline the member university for not upholding ethical standards they set. Why is this so hard for you to grasp. They set up the NCAA to perform that function. They have them the power. If they don't want them doing it, they can just change it. I didn't realize it was Sandusky university.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 22:12:20 GMT -5
To monitor and discipline the member university for not upholding ethical standards they set. Why is this so hard for you to grasp. They set up the NCAA to perform that function. They have them the power. If they don't want them doing it, they can just change it. I didn't realize it was Sandusky university. It happened in their showers. With keys given to him by the head coach. Covered up by their administration. Again, if they don't want the NCAA involved, just tell them we don't want you involved here forth. Pretty simple.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 18, 2015 22:19:27 GMT -5
I didn't realize it was Sandusky university. It happened in their showers. With keys given to him by the head coach. Covered up by their administration. Again, if they don't want the NCAA involved, just tell them we don't want you involved here forth. Pretty simple. Guess what - child rape is illegal without the NCAA. The purpose of the NCAA is to regulate athletes and schools related to schools. Once you get into a situation like this, the NCAA is irrelvant, and authorities take control. This is football related.
|
|