Skip to main content

View Diary: Corbett announces he plans to get ALL sanctions against Penn State overturned (49 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I disagree with your premise (0+ / 0-)

    Yes, the NCAA can punish a member school for lack of institutional control. But I think an honest reading of the NCAA's literature suggests that its enforcement power is limited to lack of institutional control that causes concerns over competitive balance. Nearly every NCAA rule is designed to protect competitive balance. This is because, as I have argued before, there is no law against paying players. So the NCAA is necessary to ensure a fair playing field.

    Lack of institutional control in itself is not an NCAA violation. Lack of institutional control of ___ is a violation. The question is what you fill in that blank. A school can have a lack of institutional control over a host of things, but that lack of institutional control should only give the NCAA cause when it has an impact on competitive balance.

    The argument is that the NCAA has overstepped its authority, and that's obviously correct. The NCAA is woefully equipped to hand out punishment in situations like this one. Look at the practical effect of its "punishments." Does anyone think that scholarship reductions is an equitable punishment for child rape? Of course not. 120 years in prison is the right punishment, and that's what the rapist got. For those who covered it up, some lesser criminal penalty will fit their lesser culpability.

    The NCAA was trying to score cheap points. And it took advantage of a mob mentality media and public that had not enough balls to use logic and sanity in allowing the proper enforcement bodies to handle the issue.

    "I believe that, as long as there is plenty, poverty is evil." ~Bobby Kennedy

    by Grizzard on Wed Jan 02, 2013 at 09:26:46 PM PST

    •  That doesn't mean (0+ / 0-)

      that the NCAA committed an illegal group boycott, where the burden of proof is on the commonwealth.  The NCAA can interpret its by-laws, and for purposes of the lawsuit, the governor has to show the finding of a violation is not just unreasonable but unreasonable on antitrust grounds, which necessarily involves arguing that Penn State is a victim, which necessarily involves minimizing Penn State's own conduct.

      But it's not unreasonable -- as it's credible that Penn State derived a recruiting advantage from covering up the cover up of child abuse -- or from the continued employment of Paterno -- there's a link to on-field conduct.  The University even used the Second Mile as a fundraising tool for football, to promote the whole Penn State is special and unique but in a good way mystique.

      Besides, let's credit the lawsuit for calling out the NCAA as hypocrites -- that helps the NCAA's argument that the sanctions were necessary to protect the "image," and therefore the market, of the college game as a whole.  The hypocrisy is actually a pro-competitive justification for any supposed concerted activity.

      As to what's a violation of NCAA regs, Penn State agreed.  The governor can say Penn State was "coerced," but that doesn't mean the commonwealth suffered an antitrust injury, an injury of the type the by laws were designed to prevent.

      Difficult, difficult, lemon difficult.

      by Loge on Thu Jan 03, 2013 at 08:56:00 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (174)
  • Community (70)
  • Baltimore (50)
  • Civil Rights (42)
  • Bernie Sanders (39)
  • Culture (34)
  • Elections (26)
  • Law (26)
  • Economy (25)
  • Freddie Gray (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Labor (22)
  • Hillary Clinton (22)
  • Texas (21)
  • 2016 (21)
  • Rescued (21)
  • Environment (20)
  • Racism (20)
  • Media (20)
  • Barack Obama (19)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site