Did NCAA Overstep its Authority?

JonDMiller

JonDMiller

Publisher/Founder
I am reading a lot of national talking heads and others saying the NCAA overstepped its authority with its sanctions of Penn State.

Don't know that I go along with that.

Penn State signed a consent of decree, saying they accepted the NCAA's punishment. While PSU may have done this to avoid the Death Penalty, or the threat of it, it still comes down to a simple premise:

if you believe the NCAA was operating outside of its jurisdiction, the threat of the Death Penalty for the aspects related to the PSU situation would be empty, would they not?

You can't on the one hand say you feel the NCAA was out over its ski tips and in the next breath say that you accepted what would be an implied illegitimate set of punishments to avoid harsher punishments from an agency you don't believe had the power to do what it did.

Which in the end means you really do believe the NCAA had the authority to do what it did, which renders the debate of whether or not the NCAA actually had the authority to do what it did, moot.
 
Last edited:
Re: Did Penn State Overstep its Authority?

Thread title incorrect?
 
No, it is a stupid discussion and a classic example how talking heads make up different opinions to get people to read their content.
 
Let's pretend they were threatened with death penalty if they didn't agree to the sanctions put forth...

I disagree with your logic because Penn State wasn't 100% certain that they would win an appeal. So they thought it was smarter for them to take these sanctions, not risk losing an appeal and getting the death penalty, and not risk the incredibly terrible press that would be brought down on the school with an appeal.

Again, I agree that the NCAA had jurisdiction. Just don't agree with the logic in the OP.
 
I've been saying all along that I didn't think the NCAA would be able to do anything because the bylaws are too vague or non-existent in a case like this. This is not something that anyone writing the bylaws would have ever expected to happen so it was never addressed. I have a feeling that PSU is in full damage control mode and that they figured it was better to just STFU and accept any punishment handed down to prevent any further embarrassment in public. They could fight it and would probably be able to create a good defense against the sanctions, but at what cost in the public eye?
 
Penn State is a criminal matter, not an NCAA by-law matter.

HOWEVER as Emmert said yesterday, they HAD to act to ensure that football never took on an importance so great that an entire administration was willing to look the other way with kids getting molested by a coach/former coach/pseudo football emeritus guy.

For them to have not acted, would have been to allow football to continue to be more important than doing the right thing.

If they overstepped their bounds, than they were right for doing it.
 
atxhawk said:
I've been saying all along that I didn't think the NCAA would be able to do anything because the bylaws are too vague or non-existent in a case like this. This is not something that anyone writing the bylaws would have ever expected to happen so it was never addressed. I have a feeling that PSU is in full damage control mode and that they figured it was better to just STFU and accept any punishment handed down to prevent any further embarrassment in public. They could fight it and would probably be able to create a good defense against the sanctions, but at what cost in the public eye?
Click to expand...

This. Even if you're 100% sure the NCAA didn't overstep here, the fact that PSU signed the consent doesn't provide any kind of confirmation.
 
atxhawk said:
I've been saying all along that I didn't think the NCAA would be able to do anything because the bylaws are too vague or non-existent in a case like this. This is not something that anyone writing the bylaws would have ever expected to happen so it was never addressed. I have a feeling that PSU is in full damage control mode and that they figured it was better to just STFU and accept any punishment handed down to prevent any further embarrassment in public. They could fight it and would probably be able to create a good defense against the sanctions, but at what cost in the public eye?
Click to expand...

Evidence for this claim?
 
olivecourt said:
I would love it if people at least browsed this before responding:

http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools...misc_non_event/1112ncaa-compliance-manual.pdf

I've heard/read a ton of people proclaiming expertise over what the NCAA can and can't do in the past few days, but I haven't seen anyone backing up their arguments with actual evidence.
Click to expand...

Read the entire manual...NCAA did fine.

Too bad the Big 10 didn't step up to the plate....wonder if the Big 10 has a manual covering compliance. They always talk about the high level of excellence it takes to be in the Big 10.
 
tm3308 said:
This. Even if you're 100% sure the NCAA didn't overstep here, the fact that PSU signed the consent doesn't provide any kind of confirmation.
Click to expand...

The NCAA isn't some external body like the FBI or the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is composed of its member institutions-- and Penn State is one of those. So they can pretty much do whatever their member institutions agree to. That's why Penn State's agreement is relevant here.
 
HawkMD2007 said:
Read the entire manual...NCAA did fine.

Too bad the Big 10 didn't step up to the plate....wonder if the Big 10 has a manual covering compliance. They always talk about the high level of excellence it takes to be in the Big 10.
Click to expand...

No kidding, NCAA did their part and the Big Ten looked like a bunch of idiots doing nothing.
 
If you watched the interviews with the board and university president yesterday it was clear that they didn't have the power to make the needed changes without the NCAA giving them the necessary hammer. Football operated under a different set of rules than the rest of the university to the extent that change couldn't have been an inside job.
 
olivecourt said:
Evidence for this claim?
Click to expand...

Show me where they gained a competitive advantage from this case. They knew what was going on, but it is a criminal matter, not a competitive one which is what the bylaws are meant to protect. Joe Pa was protecting one of his own and trying to not humiliate Sandusky and protect his own reputation at the same time. One could argue that had they done the right thing it would have reinforced his aura of always doing the right thing, instead he chose the wrong thing and now this has happened. Now if they started investigating more and found out that the coverups went even deeper, and involved players getting preferential treatments, being let off on speeding tickets and such, then they would have a case for competitive advantage.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I do have friends who are and we discuss random cases sometimes. The law is never as black and white as it may seem, and in order to come to a rational decision you must always look at both sides of case to prepare your arguments and defenses.

That all being said, I'm glad the NCAA decided to do something and not at all surprised PSU accepted their decision. If the rumors about Paterno and how he was basically in charge there are true, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more coverups involving players and such that DID violate rules. The people now in charge knew this and knew that there would be far more things come out if they did not accept the terms.
 
atxhawk said:
Show me where they gained a competitive advantage from this case. They knew what was going on, but it is a criminal matter, not a competitive one which is what the bylaws are meant to protect. Joe Pa was protecting one of his own and trying to not humiliate Sandusky and protect his own reputation at the same time. One could argue that had they done the right thing it would have reinforced his aura of always doing the right thing, instead he chose the wrong thing and now this has happened. Now if they started investigating more and found out that the coverups went even deeper, and involved players getting preferential treatments, being let off on speeding tickets and such, then they would have a case for competitive advantage.
Click to expand...

This is what I don't see the evidence for-- that the NCAA's bylaws are solely devoted to maintaining a level playing field. In fact, if you read the purposes of the NCAA as stated in their manual you don't see anything about competitive advantage/level playing field:

The purposes of this Association are:
(a) To initiate, stimulate and improve intercollegiate athletics programs for student-athletes and to promote and
develop educational leadership, physical itness, athletics excellence and athletics participation as a recreational pursuit;
(b) To uphold the principle of institutional control of, and responsibility for, all intercollegiate sports in conformity with the constitution and bylaws of this Association;
(c) To encourage its members to adopt eligibility rules to comply with satisfactory standards of scholarship,
sportsmanship and amateurism;
(d) To formulate, copyright and publish rules of play governing intercollegiate athletics;
(e) To preserve intercollegiate athletics records;
(f) To supervise the conduct of, and to establish eligibility standards for, regional and national athletics events
under the auspices of this Association;
(g) To cooperate with other amateur athletics organizations in promoting and conducting national and international athletics events;
(h) To legislate, through bylaws or by resolutions of a Convention, upon any subject of general concern to the
members related to the administration of intercollegiate athletics; and
(i) To study in general all phases of competitive intercollegiate athletics and establish standards whereby the colleges and universities of the United States can maintain their athletics programs on a high level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Share this page

Top