Thanks for the reply, dsl ........
Instead, the examples of "unethical activity" are ALL related directly to the eligibility of student-athletes.
I believe this is the underpinning evidence in support of your position that the NCAA has no authority to pursue PSU in the matter of the Sandusky/Paterno affair.
If Sandusky had committed his crimes off campus, I would agree with you. However, he committed those crimes on campus and 4 PSU employees, including the HC and AD knew that he was committing them.
I also agree with you that the unethical conduct clauses of the NCAA ByLaws are vague and open to interpretation. That, however, does not invalidate them or make it impossible for the NCAA to apply them in the Paterno/Sandusky affair. Of course, this ignores the NCAA incompetence argument but I don't think, in the final analysis, that matters. The NCAA is a governing authority that has a public duty to regulate the activity of its members. Whether they are competent at it is another matter.
In the UCMJ, Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming ..... unethical conduct) is also fairly vague and can be applied to a wide range of behaviors. The point is that organizations wishing to hold members to a higher standard of behavior than the general public (one of the things the NCAA is trying to do with its ByLaws) has a public and civic duty to apply the ByLaws it writes and members agree to abide by.
There is plenty of room for debate on this subject. I think the most compelling argument for NCAA involvement would contain these key points: (1) The credibility of the NCAA is on public trial in this matter. The NCAA is NOT going to sit on the sidelines on this one. (2) This isn't a matter of stealing money, cheating on your wife or lying; it involves in our culture the most egregious crimes committed by an employee of PSU who was directly involved with the football program at the time the crimes were committed. (3) The public's cry for accountability here is going to ultimately drive the NCAA's position on this.
Instead, the examples of "unethical activity" are ALL related directly to the eligibility of student-athletes.
I believe this is the underpinning evidence in support of your position that the NCAA has no authority to pursue PSU in the matter of the Sandusky/Paterno affair.
If Sandusky had committed his crimes off campus, I would agree with you. However, he committed those crimes on campus and 4 PSU employees, including the HC and AD knew that he was committing them.
I also agree with you that the unethical conduct clauses of the NCAA ByLaws are vague and open to interpretation. That, however, does not invalidate them or make it impossible for the NCAA to apply them in the Paterno/Sandusky affair. Of course, this ignores the NCAA incompetence argument but I don't think, in the final analysis, that matters. The NCAA is a governing authority that has a public duty to regulate the activity of its members. Whether they are competent at it is another matter.
In the UCMJ, Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming ..... unethical conduct) is also fairly vague and can be applied to a wide range of behaviors. The point is that organizations wishing to hold members to a higher standard of behavior than the general public (one of the things the NCAA is trying to do with its ByLaws) has a public and civic duty to apply the ByLaws it writes and members agree to abide by.
There is plenty of room for debate on this subject. I think the most compelling argument for NCAA involvement would contain these key points: (1) The credibility of the NCAA is on public trial in this matter. The NCAA is NOT going to sit on the sidelines on this one. (2) This isn't a matter of stealing money, cheating on your wife or lying; it involves in our culture the most egregious crimes committed by an employee of PSU who was directly involved with the football program at the time the crimes were committed. (3) The public's cry for accountability here is going to ultimately drive the NCAA's position on this.
Comment