Mutts

[TooTall]

Same day they penalize FSU for something minor. Why is the FSU story an issue and this is ok?

Because the NCAA is a nut-less organization. However, the mutt situation is going to play out in the courts and could have much worse consequences than loss of 5 scholarships and 1 year probation.

 

[CEB]

Same day they penalize FSU for something minor. Why is the FSU story an issue and this is ok?

It’s right there in the NCAA guidelines as an example.

Select which event is punishable by NCAA:

Scenario A: Ride is given by athletic department personnel originating from a strip club, including DUI, drag racing and ending in a fiery crash, killing two.

Scenario B: Ride given by athletic department personnel originating at school facility, obeying all traffic laws and ending safely with a ‘booster’ meeting.

Answer: Scenario B is punishable. The NCAA purview does not include criminal acts, unless it becomes politically expedient. Favors and booster meetings, however, are always impermissible benefits and should be investigated thoroughly. Check to see if they had lunch on the way or if anyone gave the kid a hoodie.

 

[RonJohn]

It’s right there in the NCAA guidelines as an example.

Select which event is punishable by NCAA:

Scenario A: Ride is given by athletic department personnel originating from a strip club, including DUI, drag racing and ending in a fiery crash, killing two.

Scenario B: Ride given by athletic department personnel originating at school facility, obeying all traffic laws and ending safely with a ‘booster’ meeting.

Answer: Scenario B is punishable. The NCAA purview does not include criminal acts, unless it becomes politically expedient. Favors and booster meetings, however, are always impermissible benefits and should be investigated thoroughly. Check to see if they had lunch on the way or if anyone gave the kid a hoodie.

I actually agree with the idea that the NCAA's authority does not extend to criminal acts. However, I would say so even if it was politically expedient. The Sandusky incident is one example. The police and/or other legal authorities should have investigated everyone involved. Sandusky is in prison, but I think other should have gone to prison. That was a despicable case that people in authority ignored by doing so passively allowed to continue. Everyone was frothing that the NCAA should do something about it when the story broke, but it had nothing to do with athletics, academics, or recruiting other than the people involved in the criminal activity. The NCAA eventually rolled back the sanctions, and I believe even made a statement that the sanctions shouldn't have been imposed in the first place. In my opinion, the NCAA should have stayed in it's own lane and allowed the legal authorities to investigate that scandal. The legan authorities should have done more than punish a single individual, but the NCAA cannot impose prison sentences on anyone for illegal activity.

In this article, it does describe recruiting violations. The NCAA should definitely be investigating the payments to/for unofficial visits by recruits, which is reported in this article. The NCAA has no place investigating DUIs. However, I am certain that other schools are going to use this and ask parents of recruits if they are comfortable sending their son to spend time with a bunch of bozos that are going to be driving the recruits around after drinking, even after a very bad crash that killed two people. The other schools will probably stress the apparent cover up attempt. insinuating that if the mutt staff did end up killing their son, that they would use Gantt to influence the Athen's area police to discard their son's memory and protect the mutt staff.

 

[CEB]

I actually agree with the idea that the NCAA's authority does not extend to criminal acts. However, I would say so even if it was politically expedient. The Sandusky incident is one example. The police and/or other legal authorities should have investigated everyone involved. Sandusky is in prison, but I think other should have gone to prison. That was a despicable case that people in authority ignored by doing so passively allowed to continue. Everyone was frothing that the NCAA should do something about it when the story broke, but it had nothing to do with athletics, academics, or recruiting other than the people involved in the criminal activity. The NCAA eventually rolled back the sanctions, and I believe even made a statement that the sanctions shouldn't have been imposed in the first place. In my opinion, the NCAA should have stayed in it's own lane and allowed the legal authorities to investigate that scandal. The legan authorities should have done more than punish a single individual, but the NCAA cannot impose prison sentences on anyone for illegal activity.

In this article, it does describe recruiting violations. The NCAA should definitely be investigating the payments to/for unofficial visits by recruits, which is reported in this article. The NCAA has no place investigating DUIs. However, I am certain that other schools are going to use this and ask parents of recruits if they are comfortable sending their son to spend time with a bunch of bozos that are going to be driving the recruits around after drinking, even after a very bad crash that killed two people. The other schools will probably stress the apparent cover up attempt. insinuating that if the mutt staff did end up killing their son, that they would use Gantt to influence the Athen's area police to discard their son's memory and protect the mutt staff.

FWIW, I agree with what you say 100%. I stated in another thread that the Penn State scenario set an “unprecedented” precedent, but I would expect the NCAA to go back to turning a blind eye to criminal matters.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I actually agree with the idea that the NCAA's authority does not extend to criminal acts. However, I would say so even if it was politically expedient. The Sandusky incident is one example. The police and/or other legal authorities should have investigated everyone involved. Sandusky is in prison, but I think other should have gone to prison. That was a despicable case that people in authority ignored by doing so passively allowed to continue. Everyone was frothing that the NCAA should do something about it when the story broke, but it had nothing to do with athletics, academics, or recruiting other than the people involved in the criminal activity. The NCAA eventually rolled back the sanctions, and I believe even made a statement that the sanctions shouldn't have been imposed in the first place. In my opinion, the NCAA should have stayed in it's own lane and allowed the legal authorities to investigate that scandal. The legan authorities should have done more than punish a single individual, but the NCAA cannot impose prison sentences on anyone for illegal activity.

In this article, it does describe recruiting violations. The NCAA should definitely be investigating the payments to/for unofficial visits by recruits, which is reported in this article. The NCAA has no place investigating DUIs. However, I am certain that other schools are going to use this and ask parents of recruits if they are comfortable sending their son to spend time with a bunch of bozos that are going to be driving the recruits around after drinking, even after a very bad crash that killed two people. The other schools will probably stress the apparent cover up attempt. insinuating that if the mutt staff did end up killing their son, that they would use Gantt to influence the Athen's area police to discard their son's memory and protect the mutt staff.

I think you are right. There are criminal and NCAA violations wrapped up together at uga. The Sandusky thing was much more of a gray area. It used to be the NCAA had broad leeway with “lack of institutional control” but that became subjective and inconsistent with enforcement. Ah, the NCAA. I actually think it was a good organization at one time but they got lost in the weeds as football became professionalized and power imbalances in programs proliferated.

 

[RonJohn]

I think you are right. There are criminal and NCAA violations wrapped up together at uga. The Sandusky thing was much more of a gray area. It used to be the NCAA had broad leeway with “lack of institutional control” but that became subjective and inconsistent with enforcement. Ah, the NCAA. I actually think it was a good organization at one time but they got lost in the weeds as football became professionalized and power imbalances in programs proliferated.

Except "lack of institutional control" was specifically about NCAA regulations, not general matters. From the NCAA website:

Institutional control refers to the efforts institutions make to comply with NCAA legislation and to detect and investigate violations that do occur. NCAA member institutions are obligated to maintain appropriate levels of institutional control.

I think it was just a sports fan type opinion that "institutional control" actually meant something broader. It happens quite frequently that people misinterpret words or phrases in particular instances. For the NCAA "institutional control" only refers to the procedures to comply with NCAA regulations. Another easy example, but one based in marketing to intentionally mislead people, is Tesla's "Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving". Neither of those do what normal people expect them to do based on the name.

 

[CEB]

Except "lack of institutional control" was specifically about NCAA regulations, not general matters. From the NCAA website:

I think it was just a sports fan type opinion that "institutional control" actually meant something broader. It happens quite frequently that people misinterpret words or phrases in particular instances. For the NCAA "institutional control" only refers to the procedures to comply with NCAA regulations. Another easy example, but one based in marketing to intentionally mislead people, is Tesla's "Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving". Neither of those do what normal people expect them to do based on the name.

the naming conventions of bureaucratic entities tend to have a flair for the grandiose, do they not?!

 

[RonJohn]

With respect to the NCAA investigating the allegations in this story from her text messages: I think the NCAA probably will ask her for access to the text messages. The NCAA has no authority to issue a subpoena, and have no authority to ask for a warrant. They can only request access from her. She isn't an employee of an athletic department any more, so they can't even pressure her employer to pressure her to provide access. However, I expect that her lawyers will let the mutt's lawyers know that the NCAA is requesting access. They will probably hint that they are going to comply, but that a settlement with and NDC would prevent that. Then I predict that the case will be settled.

One question for any lawyers: If she is only suing for $200k, why has it not been settled already? It seems like $200k without any admission of guilt would be much better for the mutts than the continued publicity. Is it possible that the lawsuit says something around $200k but settlement discussions are a lot higher?

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Except "lack of institutional control" was specifically about NCAA regulations, not general matters. From the NCAA website:

I think it was just a sports fan type opinion that "institutional control" actually meant something broader. It happens quite frequently that people misinterpret words or phrases in particular instances. For the NCAA "institutional control" only refers to the procedures to comply with NCAA regulations. Another easy example, but one based in marketing to intentionally mislead people, is Tesla's "Auto-pilot" and "Full Self Driving". Neither of those do what normal people expect them to do based on the name.

Got it. “Institutions that are out of control” is not the same as “lack of institutional control.” So, ultimately, the job of the NCAA is not strictly about protecting student athletes.

I’m not arguing with you. You are correct. But it just makes the hypocrisy seem worse.

 

[CEB]

Got it. “Institutions that are out of control” is not the same as “lack of institutional control.” So, ultimately, the job of the NCAA is not strictly about protecting student athletes.

I’m not arguing with you. You are correct. But it just makes the hypocrisy seem worse.

Hypocrites? Harsh, dude. These are noble, well intentioned men braving the harsh Midwest winter to save the sanctity of college athletics in the face of evil, manipulative forces exploiting the purity of college football solely for profit.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Hypocrites? Harsh, dude. These are noble, well intentioned men braving the harsh Midwest winter to save the sanctity of college athletics in the face of evil, manipulative forces exploiting the purity of college football solely for profit.

Sorry. I must have lost my head for a moment.

 

[RonJohn]

Got it. “Institutions that are out of control” is not the same as “lack of institutional control.” So, ultimately, the job of the NCAA is not strictly about protecting student athletes.

I’m not arguing with you. You are correct. But it just makes the hypocrisy seem worse.

I don't see that as hypocrisy. Pounding small schools into the ground for small violations while delaying and delaying and delaying and delaying major investigations into major schools is hypocrisy.

IF the NCAA were working optimally for it's intended purpose, that purpose isn't to "protect" student athletes away from the field/arena/course/track/etc. The NCAA can "protect" student athletes by adjusting and enforcing rules of competition. Things like horse collar tackle and targeting penalties were added to football to try to take away forms of play that can cause injury. Requirements for facilities, such as basketball courts, can help prevent injuries. Nothing the NCAA does will eliminate injuries during athletic competition because athletic competition is inherently dangerous. Even in something seemingly benign like sprints can have muscle pulls or falls that need extended medical treatment. The NCAA, even if working perfectly to try to prevent injuries will not prevent injuries.

Away from the field, what is the role of the NCAA in "protecting" student athletes? Should the NCAA prevent SAs from being involved in a car accident? How could they even do such a thing? Should the NCAA prevent of-age SAs from drinking a beer? Should the NCAA prevent SAs from having unprotected sex and getting an STD? If the NCAA even attempted to do the last couple of things there would be all kinds of civil rights violation accusations, at least against the public schools.

When I was in high school I played D&D. (Yes I was a geek, and I still am.) Our high school principal read some Christian material that said the D&D was not really a game, but actually a cover for "Devil worship". (I am a Christian also and not knocking the religion.) He announced that anyone who played D&D would be expelled from the school. He was mistaken about the game. Even if he had been correct, and we all were Satanist, it was a public school so he couldn't have kicked us out. He tried to insert himself into a situation over which he had no authority, and it only ended up making him look like an idiot. There may have been some parents who thought he was doing the correct thing, "protecting" the students, but he wasn't actually.

My general idea is that the NCAA should stay in it's lane and concentrate on athletics, athletic departments, recruiting, and educational requirements to be involved in NCAA sports. It is fine for the NCAA to have educational materials and marketing programs to educate SAs about: Dangers of DUI, risks of risky sex, how to handle money, etc. However, the NCAA has no authority regarding any of those items and they should not try to insert themselves into an authoritative role in such matters.

 

[BuzzStone]

Keep in mind the car that crashed was designated for recruiting purposes. If driving a recruit to and from strip clubs is allowed but not driving one to a financial meeting is not, then we have completely screwed up these kids chances.

 

[CEB]

Keep in mind the car that crashed was designated for recruiting purposes. If driving a recruit to and from strip clubs is allowed but not driving one to a financial meeting is not, then we have completely screwed up these kids chances.

It would only be a NCAA violation if the drinks and lap dances were free. That’s an impermissible benefit.
If we can establish the free drinks and free boobies, then the fact that the vehicle belonged to UGA and the driver was a staffer for UGA becomes pertinent to the NCAA.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

I don't see that as hypocrisy. Pounding small schools into the ground for small violations while delaying and delaying and delaying and delaying major investigations into major schools is hypocrisy.

IF the NCAA were working optimally for it's intended purpose, that purpose isn't to "protect" student athletes away from the field/arena/course/track/etc. The NCAA can "protect" student athletes by adjusting and enforcing rules of competition. Things like horse collar tackle and targeting penalties were added to football to try to take away forms of play that can cause injury. Requirements for facilities, such as basketball courts, can help prevent injuries. Nothing the NCAA does will eliminate injuries during athletic competition because athletic competition is inherently dangerous. Even in something seemingly benign like sprints can have muscle pulls or falls that need extended medical treatment. The NCAA, even if working perfectly to try to prevent injuries will not prevent injuries.

Away from the field, what is the role of the NCAA in "protecting" student athletes? Should the NCAA prevent SAs from being involved in a car accident? How could they even do such a thing? Should the NCAA prevent of-age SAs from drinking a beer? Should the NCAA prevent SAs from having unprotected sex and getting an STD? If the NCAA even attempted to do the last couple of things there would be all kinds of civil rights violation accusations, at least against the public schools.

When I was in high school I played D&D. (Yes I was a geek, and I still am.) Our high school principal read some Christian material that said the D&D was not really a game, but actually a cover for "Devil worship". (I am a Christian also and not knocking the religion.) He announced that anyone who played D&D would be expelled from the school. He was mistaken about the game. Even if he had been correct, and we all were Satanist, it was a public school so he couldn't have kicked us out. He tried to insert himself into a situation over which he had no authority, and it only ended up making him look like an idiot. There may have been some parents who thought he was doing the correct thing, "protecting" the students, but he wasn't actually.

My general idea is that the NCAA should stay in it's lane and concentrate on athletics, athletic departments, recruiting, and educational requirements to be involved in NCAA sports. It is fine for the NCAA to have educational materials and marketing programs to educate SAs about: Dangers of DUI, risks of risky sex, how to handle money, etc. However, the NCAA has no authority regarding any of those items and they should not try to insert themselves into an authoritative role in such matters.

Forgive me but you are over explaining the obvious. My point is simply that if the role of the NCAA is to protect student athletes (I’m not saying that is their role) then anything that causes a student athlete harm while they are under the care of a school’s athletic department would fall into this category. Being raped by a coach in a shower, being driven by a drunk staff member in a company car, and any number of egregious criminal actions that were known by, or ignored by, the athletic program would be covered. If protecting the student athlete from harm by the program is the objective.

Again, I’m not arguing your point. The concern of the NCAA is much more narrowly defined than simply protecting student athletes. Thus a T-shirt is a problem because it may harm an athlete by teaching him false values about athletic privilege, open him to extortion, get him in the habit of accepting bribes, the list of harms goes on. And these are important to the NCAA even though the football program did not direct this action or have knowledge of it. Yeah, still feels like hypocrisy even though I see why the NCAA would not want to deal with more serious issues of criminal harm that were tacitly condoned by athletic departments.

 

[RonJohn]

Forgive me but you are over explaining the obvious. My point is simply that if the role of the NCAA is to protect student athletes (I’m not saying that is their role) then anything that causes a student athlete harm while they are under the care of a school’s athletic department would fall into this category. Being raped by a coach in a shower, being driven by a drunk staff member in a company car, and any number of egregious criminal actions that were known by, or ignored by, the athletic program would be covered. If protecting the student athlete from harm by the program is the objective.

Again, I’m not arguing your point. The concern of the NCAA is much more narrowly defined than simply protecting student athletes. Thus a T-shirt is a problem because it may harm an athlete by teaching him false values about athletic privilege, open him to extortion, get him in the habit of accepting bribes, the list of harms goes on. And these are important to the NCAA even though the football program did not direct this action or have knowledge of it. Yeah, still feels like hypocrisy even though I see why the NCAA would not want to deal with more serious issues of criminal harm that were tacitly condoned by athletic departments.

The shoes and tshirts issue was about protecting integrity of the sport, amateurism, and competition among the schools regarding recruiting. I believe that it was a valid thing for the NCAA to be concerned about. There is hypocrisy in how it was enforced. GT drew a lot of penalties, while there were no penalties for the father of a local recruit being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for that recruit to play at an SEC school. The hypocrisy in my opinion, is not in what the NCAA has tried to deal with, but in how they have not been consistent with the enforcement.

Also, even while the intent was to prevent amateur athletics from being turned into professional athletics, the actual rules didn't make any sense. Looking at how things used to be: A college athlete received tuition, books, room, and board. If the athlete had a poor family that needed financial assistance, he still couldn't receive any income during the season at all. A Clemson player had to get permission and a waiver from the NCAA in order to be able to take care of his brother who was in danger because their mother was an addict. A player for UCF had to make a decision between being a college football player and having a YouTube channel. (He chose the YT channel and a couple of years ago was estimated to be making $1 million per year) The rules were overbearing on people who were trying to do the right thing, but had loopholes in rule and enforcement that allowed the big programs to continue to directly pay players without consequence.

The NCAA has been basically toothless for a while. I don't think it will be much longer before a court ends up making student athletes employees, which will throw things way off. (much longer being relative to legislative and court case terms, not meaning in the immediate future.) The NCAA has done nothing and allowed lots of these issues to percolate, until they are ready to explode. Not surprising to me as there are more than 1,000 NCAA member schools. Getting consensus with a large group and getting rules drafted to implement good ideas is difficult with such large groups.

Back to the mutts: As I said earlier, the most the NCAA can do is request the messages from the lady filing the lawsuit. I think her lawyers would rather use that request to drive up the settlement with the athletic department than assist the NCAA with any investigation. We have seen the AJC's and ESPN's interpretation of the filing that was made through the lens of the lady's lawyers. That lens is going to be very clouded towards whatever makes her case, or settlement negotiating position, stronger. I believe that before anything actionable becomes public that there will be a settlement, and that she will not cooperate with the NCAA. I can hope for a better result, but that is what I believe will happen.

 

[GT33]

The Sandusky thing was much more of a gray area.

Humping a bunch of pre-teens is not gray. That's full on red zone.

 

[Northeast Stinger]

Humping a bunch of pre-teens is not gray. That's full on red zone.

Oh I agree!!!

I simply meant the NCAA considered it a gray area. Which is why they took back their sanctions.

 

[RonJohn]

Gray as in whether they have any authority to act in the matter. Not gray as in were the underlying circumstances OK or not OK.

 

[TooTall]

Here's the definition of tone deaf...can't even say their names and put a picture? I guess that reminds folks that 2 PEOPLE were killed.

https://twitter.com/GeorgiaFootball