Started By
Message
re: If Penn State Scandal occurred in the SEC , would we support a ban?
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:10 pm to Bulskinator
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:10 pm to Bulskinator
I would support a suspended ban. They are banned unless they fire each and every one of those jackasses that ignored or covered this shite up. No sense in punishing the innocent parties.
2
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:12 pm to KaiserSoze99
quote:
No sense in punishing the innocent parties.
Don't let an SMU fan see this.
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:14 pm to WDE24
quote:
I haven't seen the rules, which ones were violated? I know the NCAA rules don't cover this type of issue so the NCAA would have to go out of its way to interpret its rules very broadly so that they could make a determination. I just don't think there is any need or reason for them to do that.
Have you seen this and read the letter yet?
LINK
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:14 pm to WDE24
quote:
Be honest, you didn't read it before you posted that, did you?
I did, but I also didn't neglect to read the part where it says that the list is simply illustrative and that the duty is broader than that. Be serious, you intentionally left that information out to make a smart aleck post that is unbecoming of you.
Mark Emmert appears to agree with my view of it. I will save you the need to apologize. I forgive your wrong-headed comment regarding the school's ethical duty to the ncaa.
This post was edited on 7/13/12 at 1:18 pm
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:15 pm to KaiserSoze99
I'm not sure if the Freeh report found anymore people involved, but I think this has already happened.
I think the PSU BOT, since this came to light, has done a pretty good job. Obviously it is way too little, way too late to change what happened, but they acted pretty quickly in firing people and also allowed/paid for the University to be independently investigated and that investigation to be made public despite the significant liability on PSU that the investigation has revealed.
I think the PSU BOT, since this came to light, has done a pretty good job. Obviously it is way too little, way too late to change what happened, but they acted pretty quickly in firing people and also allowed/paid for the University to be independently investigated and that investigation to be made public despite the significant liability on PSU that the investigation has revealed.
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:18 pm to Tiguar
quote:That letter highlights what I posted. The NCAA could act if it chooses to, but it would have to interpret its by laws pretty loosely to cover this crime. If they want to act they can, I just don't think they are the right people to handle this and, it is, IMO, people's outrage and desire to exact a pound of flesh wherever it can be exacted that drives the sentiment that the NCAA should be involved.
Have you seen this and read the letter yet?
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:20 pm to therick711
quote:I did not intentionally leave it out. Go to the rule book, not the NCAA letter and read that section. It is clear it wasn't intended to cover this type situation. I acknowledge that the NCAA could use a broad interpretation to act if they so choose.
you intentionally left that information out to make a smart aleck post that is unbecoming of you.
Now be honest, you read Emmert's letter not the bylaws didn't you?
This post was edited on 7/13/12 at 1:22 pm
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:23 pm to crimsonsaint
quote:
So by banning PSU from fielding a football team, how have you punished any of those four individuals?
I think it does "punish" further the reputations and careers of those associated. Although anything more than what has happened to those involved is lagniappe for the victims.
My opinion that the NCAA should be involved with the punishing of PSU is in part, based off the facts that it was Sandusky, a former arse. Coach, no pun I swear, who's heinous crimes were covered up, while still a coach, and thus preventing legal action to occur. If these crimes had been brought to the public when they happened, obviously Sandusky would have been fired and jailed. The PSU football program would have suffered a long period of poor recruiting due to public opinion, see SMU and what they did is no where near the PSU scandal. The football program, and the AD were more concerned with public perception, than doing the right thing, so that PSU Football could continue to make money off of a historic and pristine brand to fund other PSU sports programs.
Yeah bring on the DP NCAA....
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:23 pm to WDE24
You are back tracking:
I focused on the duties imposed by this:
You disingenuously in attempt to mock me looked at the ennumerated list to determine that it wasn't applicable without reviewing or intentionally omitting this:
Just admit that I read it broader than you did (assuming you even read it all) and Emmert agrees with me. You trying to defend being unduly snarky to someone that has shown you respect in this debate is pretty sad.
I focused on the duties imposed by this:
quote:
Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
You disingenuously in attempt to mock me looked at the ennumerated list to determine that it wasn't applicable without reviewing or intentionally omitting this:
quote:
Unethical conduct by a prospective or enrolled student-athlete or a current or former institutional staff member
(e.g., coach, professor, tutor, teaching assistant, student manager, student trainer) may include, but is not limited
to, the following:
Just admit that I read it broader than you did (assuming you even read it all) and Emmert agrees with me. You trying to defend being unduly snarky to someone that has shown you respect in this debate is pretty sad.
This post was edited on 7/13/12 at 1:26 pm
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:36 pm to therick711
quote:No, I am not. I have been pretty consistent.
You are back tracking:
quote:No, I said the rules don't really cover this unless you want to include the general statement. Which is true.
You disingenuously in attempt to mock me looked at the ennumerated list to determine that it wasn't applicable without reviewing or intentionally omitting this:
Also, you didn't answer either of my questions. Being honest, did you actually read the rule book before posting that rule or just Emmert's letter?
quote:If you read the rule book (which I did) and Emmert's letter, you see that even Emmert has to acknowledge the stretch being made. Sure, he can do it because the rule is vague enough, but a fair reading of the rule book would not encompass covering this incident. Which, frankly, isn't surprising because who would ever have considered something like this could happen.
Just admit that I read it broader than you did (assuming you even read it all) and Emmert agrees with me.
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:43 pm to WDE24
quote:
Also, you didn't answer either of my questions. Being honest, did you actually read the rule book before posting that rule or just Emmert's letter?
Yes I googled "NCAA ethics" went to the guidebook, available in pdf. Searched it. Read sections 10 and 11. Determined it was a basis for saying a violation of the code of ethics existed. Edited a previous post. Went to lunch. Came back and saw the poster who linked the letter. Read your post which misstated what the rule says. Refuted your disingenuous argument and undue snarkiness. Now I am answering a question to which the answer is immaterial because you are stubbornly being an arse about it. Give up the ghost. It is a basis and the president of the NCAA has already taken that position. Further since you already agreed that state bar associations and other professional licensing entities have a right and an obligation to act regarding crimes that are unrelated or tangentially related to the area of conduct they govern, QED.
Further still, The letter actually outlines other more pertinent sections of the rule book that I would have quoted had I seen it before it was posted by Tiguar.
This post was edited on 7/13/12 at 1:48 pm
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:49 pm to therick711
quote:It did not.
Read your post which misstated what the rule says.
quote:Argument is legit.
Refuted your disingenuous argument
quote:It is, but the NCAA has to take a very broad reading of its rule books if it wants to act.
It is a basis and the president of the NCAA has already taken that position.
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:49 pm to Bulskinator
quote:
Imagine a similar size and scope
I'd rather not but .......
I would want the program, whoever it was, shut down for two years and a re-start
Issue IMO is that the university saw the football program as bigger than the university
shut down must occur to SHOW that anything like this will not be tolerated anywhere at anytime
already failed once
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:49 pm to WDE24
Here is article 10 in its entirety. Other than the very broad general principal, it doesn't really apply to this situation.
quote:
10.01 generAL PrinCiPLe
10.01.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with
honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as
individuals, shall represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
10.02 DeFiniTions AnD APPLiCATions
10.02.1 sports wagering. [#] Sports wagering includes placing, accepting or soliciting a wager (on a staff
member’s or student-athlete’s own behalf or on the behalf of others) of any type with any individual or organization on any intercollegiate, amateur or professional team or contest. Examples of sports wagering include, but are
not limited to, the use of a bookmaker or parlay card; Internet sports wagering; auctions in which bids are placed
on teams, individuals or contests; and pools or fantasy leagues in which an entry fee is required and there is an
opportunity to win a prize. (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
10.02.2 wager. [#] A wager is any agreement in which an individual or entity agrees to give up an item of
value (e.g., cash, shirt, dinner) in exchange for the possibility of gaining another item of value. (Adopted: 4/26/07
effective 8/1/07)
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;
(c) 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)
(e) Receipt of benefits by an institutional staff member for facilitating or arranging a meeting between a studentathlete and an agent, financial advisor or a representative of an agent or advisor (e.g., “runner”); (Adopted:
1/9/96, Revised: 8/4/05)
(f) Knowing involvement in providing a banned substance or impermissible supplement to student-athletes,
or knowingly providing medications to student-athletes contrary to medical licensure, commonly accepted
standards of care in sports medicine practice, or state and federal law. This provision shall not apply to banned
substances for which the student-athlete has received a medical exception per Bylaw 31.2.3.5; however, the
substance must be provided in accordance with medical licensure, commonly accepted standards of care and
state or federal law; (Adopted: 8/4/05, Revised: 5/6/08)
(g) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or an institution’s admissions office regarding an individual’s academic record (e.g., schools attended, completion of
coursework, grades and test scores); (Adopted: 4/27/06, Revised: 10/23/07)
(h) Fraudulence or misconduct in connection with entrance or placement examinations; (Adopted: 4/27/06)
10.01 General Principle ...................................................45
10.02 Definitions and Applications ...........................45
10.1 Unethical Conduct ...............................................45
10.2 Knowledge of Use of Banned Drugs ............46
10.3 Sports Wagering Activities ...............................46
10.4 Disciplinary Action ...............................................4646
(i) Engaging in any athletics competition under an assumed name or with intent to otherwise deceive; or (Adopted: 4/27/06)
(j) Failure to provide complete and accurate information to the NCAA, the NCAA Eligibility Center or the
institution’s athletics department regarding an individual’s amateur status. (Adopted: 1/8/07, Revised: 5/9/07)
10.2 KnowLeDge oF use oF BAnneD Drugs
A member institution’s athletics department staff members or others employed by the intercollegiate athletics
program who have knowledge of a student-athlete’s use at any time of a substance on the list of banned drugs,
as set forth in Bylaw 31.2.3.4, shall follow institutional procedures dealing with drug abuse or shall be subject to
disciplinary or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2.
10.3 sPorTswAgering ACTiViTies [#]
The following individuals shall not knowingly participate in sports wagering activities or provide information to
individuals involved in or associated with any type of sports wagering activities concerning intercollegiate, amateur
or professional athletics competition: (Adopted: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
(a) Staff members of an institution’s athletics department;
(b) Nonathletics department staff members who have responsibilities within or over the athletics department
(e.g., chancellor or president, faculty athletics representative, individual to whom athletics reports);
(c) Staff members of a conference office; and
(d) Student-athletes.
10.3.1 scope of Application. [#] The prohibition against sports wagering applies to any institutional practice or any competition (intercollegiate, amateur or professional) in a sport in which the Association conducts
championship competition, in bowl subdivision football and in emerging sports for women. (Adopted: 4/26/07
effective 8/1/07)
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:50 pm to WDE24
quote:
10.3.1.1 Exception. [#] The provisions of Bylaw 10.3 are not applicable to traditional wagers between institutions (e.g., traditional rivalry) or in conjunction with particular contests (e.g., bowl games). Items wagered
must be representative of the involved institutions or the states in which they are located. (Adopted: 4/26/07
effective 8/1/07)
10.3.2 sanctions. [#] The following sanctions for violations of Bylaw 10.3 shall apply: (Adopted: 4/27/00
effective 8/1/00, Revised: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
(a) A student-athlete who engages in activities designed to influence the outcome of an intercollegiate contest or
in an effort to affect win-loss margins (“point shaving”) or who participates in any sports wagering activity
involving the student-athlete’s institution shall permanently lose all remaining regular-season and postseason
eligibility in all sports. (Revised: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
(b) A student-athlete who participates in any sports wagering activity through the Internet, a bookmaker or a
parlay card shall be ineligible for all regular-season and postseason competition for a minimum period of one
year from the date of the institution’s determination that a violation occurred and shall be charged with the
loss of a minimum of one season of eligibility. If the student-athlete is determined to have been involved in a
later violation of any portion of Bylaw 10.3, the student-athlete shall permanently lose all remaining regularseason and postseason eligibility in all sports. (Revised: 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
10.4 DisCiPLinAry ACTion [#]
Prospective or enrolled student-athletes found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be ineligible
for further intercollegiate competition, subject to appeal to the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for
restoration of eligibility. (See Bylaw 10.3.2 for sanctions of student-athletes involved in violations of Bylaw 10.3.)
Institutional staff members found in violation of the provisions of this regulation shall be subject to disciplinary
or corrective action as set forth in Bylaw 19.5.2.2 of the NCAA enforcement procedures, whether such violations
occurred at the certifying institution or during the individual’s previous employment at another member institution. (Revised: 1/10/90, 4/27/00 effective 8/1/00, 4/26/07 effective 8/1/07)
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:52 pm to WDE24
Posted on 7/13/12 at 1:52 pm to Bulskinator
Yes, without a doubt.
Posted on 7/13/12 at 4:19 pm to nc14
Posted on 7/13/12 at 6:09 pm to parkjas2001
Given the recent revelations concerning who knew what and when, I could support the removal of PSU from NCAA competition for some period of time.
If any SEC, including Arkansas, was found in the same circumstances, then I'd support a ban for them also.
No fan of any school wants their team to win more than I want mine. But, not at the expense of covering up raping little kids.
If any SEC, including Arkansas, was found in the same circumstances, then I'd support a ban for them also.
No fan of any school wants their team to win more than I want mine. But, not at the expense of covering up raping little kids.
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News