2011 NCAA/BigTen Football Thread

[Brownie]

Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Well, the Big10 is gonna need to get to 16 somehow.  Who are the candidates?

Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Louisville
West Virginia
Rutgers

Texas controls its own fate. Oklahoma would probably follow Texas.  The rest?

Rutgers gets it to 12. Add West Virginia and Louisville to make it 14. And then KSU and KU to make it 16.

The question I have is immediate. With the specter of PSU being killed, the Big Ten all of a sudden has a hole in its schedule. Does PSU really have any value to the conference outside of football? Isn't it a burden otherwise, with all the travel for non-revenue sports? (For example, the Iowa Nebraska women's field hockey team must LOVE the road trips to Happy Valley. (Get to Columbus, Ohio and you still have 5 more hours to go in that bus!)

[flannj]

Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Well, the Big10 is gonna need to get to 16 somehow.  Who are the candidates?

Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Louisville
West Virginia
Rutgers

Texas controls its own fate. Oklahoma would probably follow Texas.  The rest?

Does PSU really have any value to the conference outside of football?

Wrestling?

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

Isn't that pretty much what was going on after SMU was 86'd? All the top players landed somewhere, and all the mediocre guys sort of got screwed.

I wonder if the Big Ten could make a statement by expelling Penn State from the conference. I'm sure there are some major legal considerations, but it might be fun to see what Penn State realistically could do about it in the court of public opinion. Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Or NIU.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Well, the Big10 is gonna need to get to 16 somehow.  Who are the candidates?

Notre Dame
Oklahoma
Oklahoma State
Texas
Kansas
Kansas State
Baylor
Louisville
West Virginia
Rutgers

Texas controls its own fate. Oklahoma would probably follow Texas.  The rest?

Does PSU really have any value to the conference outside of football?

Wrestling?

Penn State is the crucial sixth team in the Big Ten hockey conference set to debut in 2013-14. And NCAA rules apparently require a conference to have at least 6 teams to qualify for automatic bids to any NCAA championships in any sport.

Prior to this season, the Big Ten only had 5 schools with DI men's hockey (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Michigan State and Ohio State). With Penn State announcing in 2010 that their hockey program would jump from being a ACHA club team to NCAA DI as of 2012-13, folding these programs into the Big Ten became possible.

(Penn State's move ultimately precipitated a fairly major college hockey realignment, with the exodus of the Big Ten teams also leading to the birth of one new conference and the death of another.)

[flannj]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

Isn't that pretty much what was going on after SMU was 86'd? All the top players landed somewhere, and all the mediocre guys sort of got screwed.

I wonder if the Big Ten could make a statement by expelling Penn State from the conference. I'm sure there are some major legal considerations, but it might be fun to see what Penn State realistically could do about it in the court of public opinion. Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Or NIU.

[Armchair_QB]

The NCAA isn't going to shut down Penn State's football program.

But they are fucked for a long, long time.

[flannj]

The NCAA isn't going to shut down Penn State's football program.

But they are fucked for a long, long time.

I can't wait for the next Minnesota / Penn State match up.

[Brownie]

The NCAA isn't going to shut down Penn State's football program.

But they are fucked for a long, long time.

I can't wait for the next Minnesota / Penn State match up.

Why? Two athletic programs with rape scandals?

[Internet Apex]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

Isn't that pretty much what was going on after SMU was 86'd? All the top players landed somewhere, and all the mediocre guys sort of got screwed.

I wonder if the Big Ten could make a statement by expelling Penn State from the conference. I'm sure there are some major legal considerations, but it might be fun to see what Penn State realistically could do about it in the court of public opinion. Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Or NIU.

Or IUPUI.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

The NCAA isn't going to shut down Penn State's football program.

But they are fucked for a long, long time.

Prediction noted.

Here's the letter from the NCAA to PSU mentioned earlier, from last November (PDF).

More than anything else, it establishes the grounds and rationale for any future action the NCAA might take in the matter.

After noting that the responsibility for compliance is, according to the NCAA Constitution, an institutional one, ultimately resting on an institution's president or chancellor, Emmert cites a few specific Articles and by-laws which could be grounds for institutional punishment (the lack of rules specifically prohibiting programs from covering up child rape notwithstanding).

Among which:

Under Article 2.4, the NCAA Constitution requires that "for intercollegiate athletics to promote the character development of participants, to enhance the integrity of higher education and to promote civility in society, student-athletes, coaches, and all others associated with these athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honest and responsibility. These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

Indeed, NCAA Bylaw 10.1 identifies 10 types of unethical conduct, but specifically makes clear that the list of 10 is not limited to those delineated. Among other things, that list captures the general principle of honesty embedded in Bylaw 10.01.1... While admittedly, the actions alleged to have occurred in this instance are not specifically listed in the bylaw, it is clear that deceitful and dishonest behavior can be found to be unethical conduct. Surely, the spirit of this bylaw also constrains behavior that endangers young people. To be clear, the requirement is so important that the language is repeated verbatim in Bylaw 11.1.1, governing the conduct of athletics personnel.

Lastly, it is important to bring to your attention that Bylaw 19.01.2 affirmatively states that "individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of inter collegiate 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 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." This provision has been cited by enforcement in at least a half dozen major infractions cases in the past. Those who exhibit this behavior are meeting the ethical expectations of the NCAA membership. Those who do not, fail us all.

He then goes on to ask the "four key questions" noted by the NCAA's remarks on the Freeh Report today. But these seem almost more of a formality than anything:

1. How has Penn State and/or its employees complied with the Articles of the Constitution and bylaws that are cited in this letter?

2. How has Penn State exercised institutional control over the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report? Were there procedures in place that were or were not followed? What are the institution's expectations and policies to address the conduct that has been alleged in this matter upon discovery by any party?

3. Have each of the alleged persons to have been involved or have notice of the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report behaved consistent with principles and requirements governing ethical conduct and honesty? If so, how? If not, how?

4. What policies and procedures does Penn State have in place to monitor, prevent and detect the issues identified in and related to the Grand Jury Report or to take disciplinary or corrective action if such behaviors are found?

Particularly after seeing Freeh's findings, does anyone expect Penn State to have a satisfactory response to even one of these questions?

I think the NCAA is clearly going to punish Penn State in some form over this. I think they'd be insane not to. Even if only from a PR perspective.

And I'm going to go out on an internet limb here and call this one in favor of: Death.

[CT III]

I think the NCAA is clearly going to punish Penn State in some form over this. I think they'd be insane not to. Even if only from a PR perspective.

And I'm going to go out on an internet limb here and call this one in favor of: Death.

That's the thing, it would have to be DEATH (sorry, that's just the cat).  I mean, if this conduct doesn't justify it, then you can't use it, ever.

[Armchair_QB]

I think the NCAA is clearly going to punish Penn State in some form over this. I think they'd be insane not to. Even if only from a PR perspective.

And I'm going to go out on an internet limb here and call this one in favor of: Death.

That's the thing, it would have to be DEATH (sorry, that's just the cat).  I mean, if this conduct doesn't justify it, then you can't use it, ever.

Baylor basketball didn't get it when one of their guys killed a teammate so I'm not sure PSU will get it here. Plus, I believe a school has to already be on probation to be eligible for it.

What I could see them doing is some sort of financial penalty with the money being turned over to an abuse prevention group.

[World's #1 Astros Fan]

Somewhere in all this, the NCAA opened an investigation into Penn State, correct?  Is there any way the school doesn't get the death penalty?  And if not, how does the NCAA justify it?

Maybe the fact that Penn St. commissioned the Freeh report helps them avoid the DP. Maybe.

But I'm thinking they're toast, but the athletes can skip the one-year waiting period to enroll elsewhere. It'll be like college free agency.

Isn't that pretty much what was going on after SMU was 86'd? All the top players landed somewhere, and all the mediocre guys sort of got screwed.

I wonder if the Big Ten could make a statement by expelling Penn State from the conference. I'm sure there are some major legal considerations, but it might be fun to see what Penn State realistically could do about it in the court of public opinion. Maybe Kansas or K-State or even Miami (O.) wants to join the Big Ten.

Or NIU.

The Reigning Mr. Irrelevant!

Adding, I can't remember when I've been so fascinated in an ongoing development and hungry for more.  Personally, I want DEATH of course, but seeing the whole thing play out is just fucking riveting.  It's not surprising that it's bringing out some of the more stimulating conversation that this shit-for-brains site has seen lately.  As you were.

[CT III]

Baylor basketball didn't get it when one of their guys killed a teammate so I'm not sure PSU will get it here. Plus, I believe a school has to already be on probation to be eligible for it.

What I could see them doing is some sort of financial penalty with the money being turned over to an abuse prevention group.

Baylor's not nearly the same thing.  Ultimately, the murder had nothing to do with the violations.  The program violations were your standard drugs and alcohol and pay for play.  Where the shit went really haywire was when Bliss tried to get his players to smear Dennehy to cover up the NCAA violations.  Once the school found out, Bliss was turfed and then they were punished.

Dave Bliss is a scumbag, but he's a bug compared to these shit stains at PSU.  We're talking about the highest levels of the school administration finding out they have a pedophile inhouse, dithering about it, then asking the head football coach what to do, and then on his order covering the whole thing up for more than a decade.  Christ, Paterno was honestly going to let Sandusky KEEP HIS FUCKING JOB as long as JOEPA was still there, I guess because we could all rest easy knowing the Old Man was keeping an eye on Uncle Jer.  I'm sure everyone involved breathed a big sigh of relief when Jerry decided to take early retirement and focus his energy on his foundation for at-risk youth.  But not before they pulled some strings to get the pedo a lump-sum pension payout and unwarranted emeritus status.

[J. Walter Weatherman]

Plus, I believe a school has to already be on probation to be eligible for it.

As ever, I'm no law-talking guy (and I've only really browsed the NCAA manual for a few minutes), but it doesn't look to me like that's the case...

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D1_2012_01.pdf

Page 335:

19.02.2 types of violations.

19.02.2.1 Violation, Secondary. A secondary violation is a violation that is isolated or inadvertent in nature, provides or is intended to provide only a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage and does not include any significant impermissible benefit (including, but not limited to, an extra benefit, recruiting inducement, preferential treatment or financial aid). Multiple secondary violations by a member institution may collectively be considered as a major violation. (Revised: 1/11/94, 10/28/10)

19.02.2.2 Violation, Major. All violations other than secondary violations are major violations, specifically including those that provide an extensive recruiting or competitive advantage. (Revised: 1/11/94)

Page 338:

19.5.2 Penalties for Major violations.  Penalties for a major violation shall be significantly more severe than those for a secondary violation and shall be consistent with the penalty structure and guidelines used by other regulatory committees (e.g., Division I Committee on Academic Performance). The Committee on Infractions may impose one or more of the following penalties: (Revised: 4/28/11 for any institution that receives a notice of inquiry after 4/28/11)

...

(g) Prohibition against specified competition in the sport (including, but not limited to, postseason competition, invitational tournaments and exempt contests or dates of competition, such as foreign tours or contests in Alaska or Hawaii), particularly in cases in which:
   (1) An involved individual remains employed at the institution;
   (2) A significant competitive advantage resulted from the violation;
   (3) The violation reflects a lack of institutional control, failure to monitor a program, or a violation of the cooperative principle set forth in Bylaw 32.1.4;
   (4) The violation includes findings of academic fraud; or
   (5) The institution is a repeat violator (as defined in Bylaw 19.5.2.1).

...

(l) Other penalties as appropriate.

A lot of power there under 'l'.

The repeat violator rule (19.5.2.1) does specifically prescribe "prohibition of some or all outside competition in the sport involved in the latest major violation for a prescribed period" as a possible penalty for a program found in violation within five years of a previous violation.

But it doesn't prevent the NCAA from also serving up a similar penalty in other situations if they deem it appropriate.

That is to say, the repeat violator rule isn't there to limit the use of the "death penalty", but rather to make it more likely in the particular case of a repeat violator.