I will try one more time.

 

The bylaw is clearly written to address unethical conduct during an investigation of NCAA rules violations. What NCAA rule did Penn State violate?

 

No part of the Bylaw says anything about it only being during an investigation...

 

I have the NCAA Manual right in front of me. I can read. No where does it say that unethical conduct only relates to investigations.

No part of the Bylaw says anything about it only being during an investigation...

 

I have the NCAA Manual right in front of me. I can read. No where does it say that unethical conduct only relates to investigations.

 

You are right. Here is the first part of the Bylaw:

 

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: (Revised: 1/10/90, 1/9/96, 2/22/01, 10/5/10)

(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;

© Knowing involvement in offering or providing a prospective or an enrolled student-athlete an improper inducement or extra benefit or improper financial aid; (Revised: 1/9/96)

(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; (Revised: 1/16/10)

 

The bylaw refers to unethical conduct during investigations but does not limit itself to unethical conduct in an investigation.

 

On the other hand, every clause is in reference to student athlete related infractions and the clause read as a whole addresses field competition related offenses. Has the NCAA ever applied this bylaw to a situation like this where an on the field competitive advantage was not involved?

 

The NCAA with this ruling turned themselves into much more than a rules enforcement body.

While I do not claim to be an expert on the NCAA by laws, from what I've read of the by laws, it does seem as if the NCAA has pushed the limits of its authority in handling this matter. However, I did read that Penn State has consented to the NCAA sanctions, meaning they will stand regardless of whether the NCAA had the authority to impose them. See: Penn State president Rodney Erickson signed consent agreement to NCAA sanctions | PennLive.com

 

And if someone has already made the point about Penn State consenting, I apologize. Don't have the time to read through the entire thread.

While I do not claim to be an expert on the NCAA by laws, from what I've read of the by laws, it does seem as if the NCAA has pushed the limits of its authority in handling this matter. However, I did read that Penn State has consented to the NCAA sanctions, meaning they will stand regardless of whether the NCAA had the authority to impose them. See: Penn State president Rodney Erickson signed consent agreement to NCAA sanctions | PennLive.com

 

And if someone has already made the point about Penn State consenting, I apologize. Don't have the time to read through the entire thread.

The have consented and to some degree they were painted in to a corner. You are going to look bad trying to dispute punishment levied against the abuse of children. Since this is all being played out in the court of public opinion, they best just take their medicine and move on from here. Hopefully they can make a full recovery. This has a lot of repercussions at PSU beyond the football program.

Did the NCAA go beyond the scope of their own principals?

 

From the NCAA manual:

 

19.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLES

 

19.01.1 Mission of NCAA Enforcement Program. It shall be the mission of the NCAA enforcement program to eliminate violations of NCAA rules and impose appropriate penalties should violations occur. The program is committed to fairness of procedures and the timely and equitable resolution of infractions cases. The achievement of these objectives is essential to the conduct of a viable and effective enforcement program. Further, an important consideration in imposing penalties is to provide fairness to uninvolved student-athletes, coaches, administrators, competitors and other institutions. (Adopted: 1/11/94)

 

 

Maybe not. The next clause in the manual which they surely used in this case to establish their authority:

 

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.

 

That clause is very broad and subjective but would give the NCAA authority to take the action they did. There is no doubt Penn State violated that clause. Still precedent setting but there is the NCAA's grounds to take action.

As in almost any case similar to this, the coverup or failure to act is worse than admitting the offense in the first place. If Penn State had come down on Sandusky in 2001 following the McQuery report of an incident and reported him to the legal authorities, there would have been few if any repercusions against PSU and Paterno. I could even see PSU being applauded by the public because they had the guts to risk their reputation and report it. Instead, they did not report it to the legal authorities and the institution suffers far more than they ever would have if they had just done the right thing.

 

I agree.

How in the world can anyone defend PSU or criticize the NCAA for this? If anything, the penalty wasn't harsh enough.

 

Because the NCAA stepped pretty far outside their normal parameters of jurisdiction to make this ruling and, in doing so, perhaps greatly broadened the powers afforded to the office of NCAA president all in an effort to be seen as coming down on the culture surrounding Penn State football while simultaneously propping up the culture surrounding big-time college football everywhere else in the country including the massive money-generating machine of major programs and demi-god status of successful coaches that allowed this whole thing to happen in the first place.

Because the NCAA stepped pretty far outside their normal parameters of jurisdiction to make this ruling and, in doing so, perhaps greatly broadened the powers afforded to the office of NCAA president all in an effort to be seen as coming down on the culture surrounding Penn State football while simultaneously propping up the culture surrounding big-time college football everywhere else in the country including the massive money-generating machine of major programs and demi-god status of successful coaches that allowed this whole thing to happen in the first place.

 

Exactly why they needed to drop the hammer.

Because the NCAA stepped pretty far outside their normal parameters of jurisdiction to make this ruling and, in doing so, perhaps greatly broadened the powers afforded to the office of NCAA president all in an effort to be seen as coming down on the culture surrounding Penn State football while simultaneously propping up the culture surrounding big-time college football everywhere else in the country including the massive money-generating machine of major programs and demi-god status of successful coaches that allowed this whole thing to happen in the first place.

 

 

I don't think they went outside the jurisdiction in any way, shape, or form. If there was ever an example of "lack of institutional control", wouldn't you say this clearly is it?

I don't think they went outside the jurisdiction in any way, shape, or form. If there was ever an example of "lack of institutional control", wouldn't you say this clearly is it?

 

"Lack of institutional control" is defined fairly precisely in the rules and I don't really think it applies here because this is exactly the opposite. This is "institutional control." At no point did the institution lack any control whatsoever over the football program or its backers. This was absolute control at the highest levels of the university.

Exactly why they needed to drop the hammer.

 

And yet the train will roll on because the underlying structure remains unchanged.

 

Let's be clear... I'm not suggesting the NCAA should have done nothing. I'm saying the NCAA hasn't done nearly enough to stop something from happening again. They're punishing Penn State and doing nothing about the culture surrounding big-time college football that allows stuff like this to happen.

As in almost any case similar to this, the coverup or failure to act is worse than admitting the offense in the first place. If Penn State had come down on Sandusky in 2001 following the McQuery report of an incident and reported him to the legal authorities, there would have been few if any repercusions against PSU and Paterno. I could even see PSU being applauded by the public because they had the guts to risk their reputation and report it. Instead, they did not report it to the legal authorities and the institution suffers far more than they ever would have if they had just done the right thing.

 

Acts of omission are generally no better than acts of comission.

Is it anywhere near apples and apples to compare this situation to the one at Baylor a few years back?

A competitive advantage is all relative to what you think it means. At SMU they paid players, good players to suit up for them and it is obvious what the advantage was. In this case a protection of the program was instilled so that a competitive disadvantage did not come about. Maybe a key recruit decides to go to tOSU instead of PSU and they do not win their recent Orange Bowl because of the cover-up??? That is more than plausible. In turn, I look at that as a competitive advantage.

 

I can see that logic. However, what if JoePa had been ushered out in the late 1990s and been replaced by a young, dynamic coach on the rise? Or an established big-name coach? Who's to say that they wouldn't have had even greater success over the past decade?

 

Hard for me to see the competitive advantage angle on this one because we don't know what might have been.

I think the NCAA overstepped its bounds on this one. No one disputes the heinousness of the crimes and Penn State's cover-up of them, but this matter is for the legal system to deal with, both in the criminal and civil courts.

 

Penn State has already paid a significant price in terms of prestige and the loss of stature in the court of public opinion, and will continue to do so. The NCAA's decision is a knee-jerk reaction and a way to appear it's doing something right in the eyes of the public.

 

I have no problem with vacating the wins and a bowl ban of reasonable length, but I do take issue with the loss of scholarships. The NCAA has wrecked Penn State's program for a decade.