Not quite so simple. Surely the NCAA, as a private entity, gets to figure out what their bailiwick is, right? And the president of the NCAA seems to think that punishing this is their job:
Nobody has suggested it’s the school’s raison d’etre. It’s not, and that is clear based on a mountain of evidence.
The problem is your insistence that it’s just a game, and non-essential, is less than compelling. Besides, you are going off on a tangent in order to avoid the question I posed to you. If the same thing happens at another school in an academic dept., do you vote to shut it down? And don’t give me some nonsense about how every academic dept. is essential to their mission because, individually, they are not. If you never would shut them down, what kind of moral hazard are you supporting by making it clear that academic entities are too integral to fail? You rail about how football is too powerful, yet there are clear rules and precedents for the death penalty. No such thing exists for an engineering dept., which makes be think the disincentives you suggest are lacking in those areas, not sports.
No, I am saying trivializing football at a school like Penn State as a “game” is foolish. People’s livelihoods depend on this. They depend on football to pay their mortgages and feed their kids. That doesn’t mean you can never shut down the program, but you should do it for valid reasons, not in some misguided sense of vengeance. There is no reason why you should punish innocent people only in order to make a point about how they value sports too much. Doing so is not gonna make people more inclined to report abuse, nor will it prevent abusers from using institutions to facilitate their abuse.
Which, again, is nonsensical in the current scenario. First, the NCAA is a voluntary organization. Do you really think those under their charge would agree to be subject to their rule if it’s deemed that schools that care about football too much can be punished? Second, the NCAA exists to govern and certify sports programs wrt to the product on the field. They don’t exist to hold schools to their mission statements, or to punish bad behavior that doesn’t result in a competitive imbalance.
Not a particularly good analogy, because Enron fell apart and declared bankruptcy all on its own. It was a self-inflicted wound, and by the time they got around to prosecuting anyone, the damage had already been done.
I cannot believe I’m having to address this very basic point again. The word I used before is “diminish.” As in, every academic program you remove from a school diminishes its ability to conduct its mission. Removing a sports program, or a cafeteria program, or a groundskeeping program, or a vending machine program, or a specific club, or anything that’s not academic, doesn’t diminish its ability to conduct its mission (although you could make an argument for the cafeteria, I suppose).
ENRON went bankrupt. That is no the same as an outside entity coming in to shut down an otherwise healthy entity in order to make a point. A better analogy would be if the government came in a shut down JP Morgan because that one of their trading groups lost billions of dollars.
Again, the point is not that a person can never be punished for the actions of others within their organization, it’s that you should take collateral damage into account, and have a valid cause for your punitive actions.
That’s what I get for posting the first thing that came to mind.
My point was really just that innocents regularly pay the price of the incompetence or mistakes of those in power.
I’ll take a stab at it. If a massive cover-up reaching all the way to the president of the unversity took place to save the face of the academic department, then yes that department should be shut down temporarily. The problem is that, in the case of an academic department, I don’t know who the regulating authorities are. The athletic department participates in NCAA activities, so they have to abide by NCAA rulings.
nvm
And I say that is bullshit. You are avoiding the question. Even disregarding how integral football itself is to their mission, why doesn’t eliminating football “diminish” the university given that they will be less likely to fulfill their academic mission without it? That’s not even considering the fact that you are naive enough to believe their stated mission statement which flies in the face of their actual conduct.
At least you are consistent.
I agree with the NCAA on one thing. It’s an unprecedented, systemic problem.
I wouldn’t mind an NCAA penalty that meaningfully addresses said problem–I don’t think the death penalty is that, because it’s a football department problem but it wasn’t really about football at all.
From the NCAA Manual:
[quote]
2.1 THe PrInCIPLe oF InsTITuTIonAL ConTroL AnD
resPonsIBILITy [li] [/li]2.1.1 responsibility for Control. [li] It is the responsibility of each member institution to control its intercollegiate athletics program in compliance with the rules and regulations of the Association. The institution’s [/li]president or chancellor is responsible for the administration of all aspects of the athletics program, including approval of the budget and audit of all expenditures. (Revised: 3/8/06)
2.1.2 scope of responsibility. [li] 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 individual or organization engaged in activities promoting the athletics interests of the institution.[/li][/quote]
And:
ETA: for some reason there was some funky effect in the cut and paste of the NCAA rules.
Ninja’d, but a little more from the NCAA Division I Manual
3.2.4 Conditions and Obligations of Membership
3.2.4.12 Standards. Active members agree to establish and maintain high standards of personal honor, eligibility and fair play
11.1 Conduct of Athletics PersonneL
11.1.1 Honesty and sportsmanship. Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution
to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so
that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity
of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
Because they won’t be.
Again, I’m only willing to send them tax dollars if they fulfill their actual mission. If they’re lying about what they’re doing on the most fundamental level, then fuck them and remove their entire institution’s funding.
Of course they would. Do you realize how much money and attention is funneled to the school because of football? Getting rid of football would mean they have less money for labs, that they attract fewer students, and that have to spend more to entice students to go there. That directly affects the stated mission.
No one cares what you are “willing” to send since you don’t send them anything. Taxes are not discretionary. More importantly, only a fool would believe their mission statement is an accurate, explicit, and exhaustive account of how they actually, or intent to operate.
I’m a fool, I’m naive, I get it, you’re not clear on which forum this is in. Let’s take another break from this.
So, Rick Reilly is wrong again? There’s a shock.
The NCAA has no cause for imposing punishments of any kind, because Penn State didn’t commit any infractions that fall under their authority.
Criminal activity unrelated to football is a matter for prosecution by legal authorities. Jerry sandusky is going to prison for the rest of his life. It’s VERY likely that Spanier, Curley and Schultz will be prosecuted as well. If the State of Pennsylvania prosecutes those men and they do jail time, then justice will have been served, and there will be NOTHING left for the NCAA to do.
I understand why many people find this unsatisfying. From a purely moral standpoint, paying football players under the table (As SMU did) is nowhere near as bad as turning a blind eye to a pedophile. SO, why can’t the NCAA impose similar, or even HARSHER penalties?
To use an analogy, which is morally worse:
- Falling behind on my rent.
- Constantly playing music too loud in my apartment.
- Writing racist articles for a neo-Nazi organization.
Can we all agree that scenario #3 is by far the worst, from a moral standpoint? Good. Now, which of those things is NOT a valid reason for my landlord to evict me?
The answer is… my landlord would have a right to evict me for not paying my rent on time. He would have a right to evict me for playing music too loud. But he would NOT have a right to evict me for being a neo-Nazi.
In the same way, the NCAA has every right to punish schools for violating NCAA rules, They DON’T have the authority to punish a school for immoral or even criminal activities that don’t fall under their rules.
Curley and Schultz have already been charged with lying to a grand jury and failing to report suspected child abuse.
I think your opinion exists because you are an alum of Penn State. I don’t seen anybody else opposing the NCAA death penalty.
Your two statements do not follow from each other. The NCAA doesn’t prosecute crimes, but it absolutely has the authority to take action against a school for reasons related to the prosecution of crimes by legal authorities. Indeed, the rules as quoted contemplate the NCAA taking action on grounds that have no direct connection to what goes on on the field. Just like your own boss can fire you if he finds out you have done someone he doesn’t like, regardless of whether it constitutes a crime.
Wrong. See posts #131 and 132, which cite specific provisions of NCAA rules that seem to give them authority to punish Penn State for their program’s gross lack of honesty and integrity.