Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked Death Penalty for Penn State

[Weinosker]

Here is the definition of Inst Control from the link above:

Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.

Here is the D1 Manual: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf

A couple of excerpts that I think apply:

2.1 THE PRIN CIPLE OF INS TITUTION AL CON TRO L ANDRES PONSI BILITY
[*]​

2.1.1 R esponsibility for Control.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiateathletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution’spresident or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approvalof the budget and audit of all expenditures. (Revised: 3/8/06)​

2.1.2 S cope 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 individualor organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.​

2.2 THE PRIN CIPLE OF STUDEN T-ATHLETE WE LL-BEING
[*]​

Intercollegiate athletics programs shall be conducted in a manner designed to protect and enhance the physicaland educational well-being of student-athletes.​

​

​

​

(Revised: 11/21/05)​

2.2.1 O verall Educational Experience.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution to establishand maintain an environment in which a student-athlete’s activities are conducted as an integral part of thestudent-athlete’s educational experience. (Adopted: 1/10/95)​

2.2.2 Cultural Diversity and Gender Equity.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution toestablish and maintain an environment that values cultural diversity and gender equity among its student-athletesand intercollegiate athletics department staff. (Adopted: 1/10/95)​

2.2.3 Health and Safety.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution to protect the health of, andprovide a safe environment for, each of its participating student-athletes. (Adopted: 1/10/95)​

2.2.4 S tudent-Athlete/Coach Relationship.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution toestablish and maintain an environment that fosters a positive relationship between the student-athlete and coach.​

(Adopted: 1/10/95)​

2.2.5 Fairness, Openness and Honesty.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution to ensurethat coaches and administrators exhibit fairness, openness and honesty in their relationships with student-athletes.​

(Adopted: 1/10/95)​

2.2.6 S tudent-Athlete Involvement.
[*]​

​

​

​

It is the responsibility of each member institution to involve​

student-athletes in matters that affect their lives. (Adopted: 1/10/95)

 

[caNUfeelit]

If this lack of institutional control does not do it what will?

Does covering up child rape to keep a billion dollar fund raiser alive give you a competitive advantage?

Especially is that fund raising effort is successful?

As far as I understand, NCAA rules pertain to eligibility issues of student athletes from academics to maintaining amateur status. This includes the recruiting process and rules governing that process which will in turn could effect the eligibility status of student athletes.

Bottom line this is not an NCAA issue. I guess I don't really understand all the hand wringing over the NCAA not doing something...are people worried the criminal charges and civil suits aren't going to do enough damage?

 

[AzHusker]

Joe Pa got off easy!

No doubt.

 

[Husker Country Doc]

I don't think so. What happened here is criminal. These were not NCAA violations, and were not part of the athletic program. No one gained a competitive advantage through the reprehensible criminal acts. Maybe Pennsylvania and the County should pursue criminal prosecution of others, but not the NCAA.

+1

this is a matter of law, not of opinion.

PSU will be hit with crippling civil lawsuits.

 

[caNUfeelit]

Here is the definition of Inst Control from the link above:

Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.

Here is the D1 Manual: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf

A couple of excerpts that I think apply:

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Well obviously there are a few more things outside of player eligibility issues at play so I'm more wrong than right though I believe the bulk of NCAA rules are in that area. But again, I don't see this as an NCAA issue. I'm sure you are hanging on the responsible for staff members, etc. While I'm not a lawyer I deal with compliance with regulations regularly and the way it reads I would argue that is in regards to NCAA rules. It was likely put in there so the school couldn't claim a rogue coach was responsible for the issues alleged

 

[Speedlimit]

Here is the definition of Inst Control from the link above:

Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.

Here is the D1 Manual: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf

A couple of excerpts that I think apply:

[/SIZE][/SIZE][/FONT][/SIZE][/FONT]

Thus, 2.1.2 requires PSU to keep people like Sandusky/Second Mile (as well as booster organizations) in check, since they clearly are "individuals or organizations enganged in activities promoting the athletic interests of the institution". Here the facts strongly indicated that PSU did nothing to keep JS from using PSU, its name and good will, its property, etc., to engage in a pattern of child rape and molestation. PSU is so deeply wrapped up in this that the NCAA cannot simply look away and say "well its not a recruiting violation or academic scandal, so I guess it does not concern us"

Come on people. We are talking about kids getting raped on the campus of PSU by an individual who was a former coach and given VIP treatment up until about 2009 (although it looks like up through 2011). Joe Pa, the AD, The Pres. and everyone who should have done something, just decided to do the "humane" thing, and cover it up. The time line shows kids were rape on campus after 2001.

KIDS RAPED ON CAMPUS AFTER THE INSTITUTION THAT COULD HAVE PREVENTED IT, DID NOT, AND THUS CLEARLY LACKED THE CONTROL REQUIRED UNDER THE NCAA.

Here is how it breaks down:


1. Criminal sanctions, against JS and any other found guilty of violating criminal laws. The People of Penn. and individual victims are the victims (or the People of the U.S. if the feds prosecute anyone). Result = individuals found guilty lose liberties

2. Civil: Only compensates individual victims for harms and damages they can prove were incurred as a result of the attacks themselves or any civil liability found against institutions or other individuals.

3. NCAA: Will punish the institution for violations of NCAA bylaws. Often done to set example and serve as a deterrent. Pretty sure they are going to want to send the message that legendary coaches should not be allowed to cover-up child rape on campus by said coaches ex-DC and long-time friend. At least I would hope so, considering they have sent big messages for for less serious transgressions.

 

[bilsker]

Certainly if there's a way the NCAA can come down on them I hope they do it. Obviously the "death penalty" isn't even a realistic option....but if they can make it their business then they should. Will they? Who knows.

 

[Speedlimit]

Certainly if there's a way the NCAA can come down on them I hope they do it. Obviously the "death penalty" isn't even a realistic option....but if they can make it their business then they should. Will they? Who knows.

After the first $150M of settlements, especially when PSU's insurance carrier gets out under an "intentional act" clause, and PSU is announcing that they are ending their football program, the NCAA will not feel so bad flipping the switch!!!!

 

[BGRed]

Do some think the NCAA will come down harder on Penn State than any civil/criminal courts?

PSU now has a major reputation issue and PSU will face large financial repurcussions. Individuals in leadership positions are also potentially facing criminal charges.

Frankly, I see no reason for the NCAA to pile on and penalize current players for the criminal misdeeds and/or reprehenisbly poor leadership of university executives. As has been mentioned, the current players were in grade school during most of the incidents.

Also, I actually would encourage the football team to be allowed to partially fulfill a healing role. If team members and coaches could conduct themselves in the manner in which JoePa publicly carried himself (if not demonstrated privately), with a genuine outward focus on playing for the love of the game and concern for the university, why stop that from happening? (Of course, we know that college football at all universities is primarily about raising $ and maybe I am unrealistic with my thoughts...).

 

[Speedlimit]

Do some think the NCAA will come down harder on Penn State than any civil/criminal courts?

PSU now has a major reputation issue and PSU will face large financial repurcussions. Individuals in leadership positions are also potentially facing criminal charges.

Frankly, I see no reason for the NCAA to pile on and penalize current players for the criminal misdeeds and/or reprehenisbly poor leadership of university executives. As has been mentioned, the current players were in grade school during most of the incidents.

Also, I actually would encourage the football team to be allowed to partially fulfill a healing role. If team members and coaches could conduct themselves in the manner in which JoePa publicly carried himself (if not demonstrated privately), with a genuine outward focus on playing for the love of the game and concern for the university, why stop that from happening? (Of course, we know that college football at all universities is primarily about raising $ and maybe I am unrealistic with my thoughts...).

They all have independent functions.

Not sure if NCAA sanctions against an institution have ever actually impacted the violators of the NCAA rules? Did any of the USC players on the 2011 commit the violations that lead to the sanctions those players had imposed on them? Thus, I do not think that is, or should be the standard.

 

[utsker]

Hey....if their program gets hit big, then it's a good thing that they're our cross division rival....pencil in those "W"s

 

[RunTheBallGuy]

Please change the thread title. It is misleading.

 

[SWVAHusker]

Even if this was a matter for the NCAA to deal with instead of the police (and I completely agree that it isn't) Penn State still wouldn't be eligible for the death penalty. People forget that the rule isn't actually called The Death Penalty Rule, that's just a nickname the media gave it. The rule is actually called The Repeat Violator Rule, the key word being Repeat. As in, if you aren't already in trouble for something else you can't get the death penalty. Because Penn State wasn't already on probation for something when this whole horrid story came to light they aren't eligible for the death penalty anyway, no matter how terrible what they did is.

Ironically, since we are currently under probation for 2 years because of the whole textbook thing we would be eligible for the death penalty if we had another major violation surface, at least until our probation is over. Go figure.

If they do somehow get involved the NCAA can actually impose penalties that are akin to the "death penalty" without having Penn State as a repeat violator.

According to the Sports Illustrated article on this issue, if the NCAA were to find a lack of institutional control NCAA rules do allow for them to be able to issue "a one-year ban on outside competition." Exactly what happened to SMU. (SMU chose not to play the second year.) As we all know the NCAA also can issue scholarship reductions. According to the article they may have the power to hit schools on scholarships retroactively. According to the article, "If the committee chose, it could wipe out an entire recruiting class."

After reading the article I'm actually, amazingly, more convinced the NCAA could do something to Penn State if they so chose. Bylaw 10.1, which discusses unethical conduct, is what the NCAA used to get Ohio State and other schools/coaches who lie to NCAA investigators. Because two of the individuals involved in the coverup were the AD and football coach the NCAA could hammer Penn State for unethical conduct by athletic department employees.

Now in order to get Penn State the NCAA would have to make an unprecedented ruling. No school has ever gotten hammered for violating Bylaw 10.1 without also getting hammered for another violation. The Sports Illustrated article makes a good point that member schools won't push for the NCAA infractions committee to wield the banhammer (video gamers will get that reference lol) because that would empower the committee to punish all sorts of recent infractions that aren't spelled out in the NCAA rulebook. For example, Oregon is claiming that their $25,000 payment to Will Lyles wasn't illegal because he wasn't a parent or a Oregon booster. Lyles is a "handler" and according to existing NCAA rules Oregon is probably going to get away with what they did in that circumstance. It's also why neither Tennessee or K-State has or will get investigated in the Bryce Brown mess. I'm quite sure something went on there, it probably just isn't currently illegal under NCAA rules.

 

[RussianRed]

How easy it is for us to trash Penn State, Thats to sad.

 

[jikastew]

Everyone involved is gone. No boosters/alumni were involved. Why bust down a school when everyone who had anything to do with the situation is gone with no possibility of a repeat offense? Doing so would punish those who had nothing to do with the situation.