Well, great. Some judge in California is trying to nerf the only punishment the NCAA has that actually punishes the people responsible for wrongdoing. Seriously, Cali, what's wrong with you folks?
Forums:
DISCLAIMER: Forum topics may not have been written or edited by The Key Play staff.
Comments
So kids can still be punished but not coaches, agents, administrators makes sense.
OT: found out a few minutes ago that our 80's band is playing Fri nite the 26th at Ocean Ave. just north of the Castillo (across from the Doubletree) in St Aug; 8 to midnight. I know you have bunch of little ones but if you decide to drop by for bit be sure to say hello. I'll be the old guy playing bass.
How are kids punished again? Having to sit out a year to transfer while remaining on full scholarship and being a student at a college? That's punishment? Or losing their eligibility for accepting illegal money under the table?
Bowl bans and scholarship reductions.
There is often a significant delay between wrongdoing and punishment in college football. The coaches/administrative offenders are either long gone at a new job getting paid or doing analyst work by the time bowl bans/scholarship reductions are assessed on the school. The bowl bans are hurting kids who didn't take money and many of whom were in middle school/early high school when the wrongdoing occurred. The scholarship reductions are reducing the number of kids who get to fulfill their dream of playing football and know that football is their best shot at a college education.
Someone needs to break it down. Reading legal jargon really confuses me.
To me, this just seems like a way for California schools to get out of the NCAA.
I assume the Cali judge is reading it in the same vain as a non-compete clause. The penalty unlawfully or unnecessarily restricted his ability to gain lawful employment (time, scope, and duration all have to be reasonable). Assuming the NCAA won't refine the rule and the penalty, I think that's they're threatening. The penalty in itself seems fine - basically, if you cheat we penalize you (yes, I know it's the NCAA and penalties are arbitrary) and the school has to tell us why they shouldn't be penalized when it seems obvious they or someone knew you were involved in said violation. The problem is that the show-cause requires any potential hiring member institution to show-cause as to why they shouldn't also face a penalty for hiring him while the year long sanction is in effect, thus potentially limiting his ability to become employed.
Private organization rules do not trump state/federal laws. In Cal, a private organization (apparently) can't punish someone by effectively taking away their job.
Has nothing to do with Cal schools wanting out of the NCAA. They can do that whenever they want. It could, however, preclude them from being in the NCAA.
If it stands, I suspect the NCAA will develop a workaround.
If that's indeed what they're saying, I call bullshit. If licensed Professional Engineer is found to have committed wrongdoing in his job, they certainly can and will revoke his/her license. Coming from that perspective, I think I can already see the workaround. The NCAA could create a coaching licensure program for coaches and establish rules that say your license can be revoked or suspended if you violate ethical standards or NCAA rules.
A license is a legal instrument required by government serving some overriding public interest, e.g., public safety. The NCAA is a not for profit...violations of their membership rules do not carry the force of law.
Whether I agree with the Cal state law or not, some states make it hard to take away certain things....like exemptions in bankruptcy proceedings. Apparently in Cal, they also protect otherwise legal employment.
IMO, the more effective and appropriate penalty rather than "show cause", would be to ban the offending coach from having contacts with prospective recruits for a period of time accompanied with substantial monitoring/reporting requirements by the employer. The NCAA governs recruiting by its member schools, not employment; I mean look at some of these guys... As demonstrated in the PSU scandal, the video game litigation, and perhaps this case, they might be better off staying within their PNP sideboards. UNC should have reminded everyone that even the NCAA's education-based 501(C)(3) status does not make them an academic accrediting body.
The California schools don't want out, they'd have nowhere to go.
Hell, the article even states that the Pac-12 was asking the court to reconsider its "tentative ruling" from a few weeks ago, since it would be difficult for the Cali schools to remain members of the NCAA. It also says something about the Pac-12 considering an appeal to the ruling.
the NCAA as an organization regularly exhibits little stomach to tow a hard line within its bounds, i.e., suspend/boot members, but regularly gets in trouble when it steps beyond those bounds trying to maintain its public image/income/power base.
they could have eliminated any number of member privileges of USC-W and no court in the land could touch them. but they get cute going after McNair's livelihood, an individual who is NOT a member of the NCAA, and for something unrelated to their education-based mission.