"Punishing Current Players for Past Players' Mistakes" Is a Useless Argument

[Tenspro2002]

And people who make that argument are detracting from and diluting the main point, which is that a retroactive changing of rules allowed for no time to adjust (and for we conspiracy theorists, that numbers were chosen in a specific way) that made it impossible for us to meet the requirements.

The way college sports works, there's no conceivable logistical way to punish a program based on the transgressions of prior athletes without harming the present athletes. You say "Look! Our current team had nothing to do with this!" and people react "yeah, that's true, but how else is the NCAA supposed to handle it?" That argument undermines the credibility and sympathy garnered from making the first point.

It has to be said.

 

[CL82]

And people who make that argument are detracting from and diluting the main point, which is that a retroactive changing of rules allowed for no time to adjust (and for we conspiracy theorists, that numbers were chosen in a specific way) that made it impossible for us to meet the requirements.

The way college sports works, there's no conceivable logistical way to punish a program based on the transgressions of prior athletes without harming the present athletes. You say "Look! Our current team had nothing to do with this!" and people react "yeah, that's true, but how else is the NCAA supposed to handle it?" That argument undermines the credibility and sympathy garnered from making the first point.

It has to be said.

Could not agree more. It think that Herbst and Manual missed the boat on the optimal pitch.

By the way, math is math, there was no way that UConn could be compliant with the new rule if old data was used. If a current data is used they are compliant. It is what it is. The NCAA cooked the books on this one. It would have been easy to set up a fair transitional rule, such as during the first 4 years of implementation, if old data results in an disqualification and the schoold can demonstrate that no penalty would occur if current data is used, no penalty will be assessed. Easy, clear, doesn't disadvantage anyone and rewards schools in compliance.

 

[SubbaBub]

And people who make that argument are detracting from and diluting the main point, which is that a retroactive changing of rules allowed for no time to adjust (and for we conspiracy theorists, that numbers were chosen in a specific way) that made it impossible for us to meet the requirements.

The way college sports works, there's no conceivable logistical way to punish a program based on the transgressions of prior athletes without harming the present athletes. You say "Look! Our current team had nothing to do with this!" and people react "yeah, that's true, but how else is the NCAA supposed to handle it?" That argument undermines the credibility and sympathy garnered from making the first point.

It has to be said.

You can process information faster and more efficiently. How about monthly eligibility reports for athletes?

If the NCAA can't find a way to enforce it's rules fairly and justly, perhaps it should focus on different rules that it can.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

 

[HooperScooper]

And people who make that argument are detracting from and diluting the main point, which is that a retroactive changing of rules allowed for no time to adjust (and for we conspiracy theorists, that numbers were chosen in a specific way) that made it impossible for us to meet the requirements.

The way college sports works, there's no conceivable logistical way to punish a program based on the transgressions of prior athletes without harming the present athletes. You say "Look! Our current team had nothing to do with this!" and people react "yeah, that's true, but how else is the NCAA supposed to handle it?" That argument undermines the credibility and sympathy garnered from making the first point.

It has to be said.

I agree 100%. I read Jeff Jacobs' article last week (I know, that was my first mistake!) and he focused on punishing the wrong players when I think he should have focused on what you are talking about. I wanted to send him an e-mail and ask him to call back Walter Harrison and go through this point. I would love to hear Harrison's argument why you should retroactively establish punishments for past transgressions. Isn't this like me getting a speeding ticket for $100. I pay the fine. A year later I get another ticket in the mail telling me the speeding fine for that offense is now $200 and I owe another $100. Yeah, seems fair to me!

 

[freescooter]

I actually agree on this point, too. the NCAA punishes programs for failing to live up to its rules, and there is no way you can do that without hurting current players...you can't meaningfully go backward, and it doesn't really change any outcome except on paper. The changed the rules after the fact argument is much more rational in my view and one that should have been the focus. If you want to add the "wrong people" "look how we've changed" arguments as secondary support, that is fine. The work in that role but not as the primary argument.

 

[caw]

You can process information faster and more efficiently. How about monthly eligibility reports for athletes?

If the NCAA can't find a way to enforce it's rules fairly and justly, perhaps it should focus on different rules that it can.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

The NCAA should have just waited a year to put this into effect if they had issues processing the data in a timely manner. Then everyone would be aware of the actual penalty beforehand.

I agree 100%. I read Jeff Jacobs' article last week (I know, that was my first mistake!) and he focused on punishing the wrong players when I think he should have focused on what you are talking about. I wanted to send him an e-mail and ask him to call back Walter Harrison and go through this point. I would love to hear Harrison's argument why you should retroactively establish punishments for past transgressions. Isn't this like me getting a speeding ticket for $100. I pay the fine. A year later I get another ticket in the mail telling me the speeding fine for that offense is now $200 and I owe another $100. Yeah, seems fair to me!

More or less. I would say in your comparison the $100 fine should be more like $5. However, there is culpability on UConn's side for saying, "I have no problem paying the $5 dollar fine, so I'm not going to worry about APR that much!" Who knows how bad the APR would have gotten if these changes weren't made by the NCAA.

 

[freescooter]

The NCAA should have just waited a year to put this into effect if they had issues processing the data in a timely manner. Then everyone would be aware of the actual penalty beforehand.



More or less. I would say in your comparison the $100 fine should be more like $5. However, there is culpability on UConn's side for saying, "I have no problem paying the $5 dollar fine, so I'm not going to worry about APR that much!" Who knows how bad the APR would have gotten if these changes weren't made by the NCAA.

I have to say that you make a goop point here. It isn't like UConn was making any particular effort to change the pattern that had developed. And in basketball losing a scholarship isn't the end of the world. Most teams carry a player or two who has about as much chance of seeing playing time as the guy in section 207. On a team that will go maybe 8-9 men deep, scholarships 10-13 are more like buying insurance than anything else. If nothing happens, it doesn't matter. if you need to go that deep, you are probably going to be either very good such that you win by huge margins, or more likely very bad.

 

[champs99and04]

I have to say that you make a goop point here. It isn't like UConn was making any particular effort to change the pattern that had developed. And in basketball losing a scholarship isn't the end of the world. Most teams carry a player or two who has about as much chance of seeing playing time as the guy in section 207. On a team that will go maybe 8-9 men deep, scholarships 10-13 are more like buying insurance than anything else. If nothing happens, it doesn't matter. if you need to go that deep, you are probably going to be either very good such that you win by huge margins, or more likely very bad.

But UConn did make an effort to increase their APR scores. Before the NCAA even came up with their new penalties, UConn was on the right track in regards to the APR, having posted a stellar APR score during the 2010-11 season. The manner in which the NCAA conducted their buisness in this situation was incredibly unfair and pointless. It was a publicity move first and foremost, justice by damned. Emmert wanted to show that he meant buisness, and he wanted to do it quickly, which unfortunately came at the expense of reason.

 

[CL82]

. Emmert wanted to show that he meant buisness, and he wanted to do it quickly, which unfortunately came at the expense of reason.

nice quote.

 

[UCONNfan1]

I find it hard to imagine that people could argue any differently. Of course the current players get punished (and yeah i also agree 100% with the OP). What happened with Enron or Exxon after the Valdez disaster? the companies took a bath and i'm betting lots of employees who had zero to do with the problems also suffered as a result.

so Exxon and Enron shouldn't have been punished? horse$hit. Exxon has recovered, but Enron went belly up. Oh well. If you have a major enough screw up, you gotta pay the price. And thousands of those innocent people lost a hell of a lot more than the current players on PSU's football team have lost.

I wish the NCAA's punishment had been even steeper (even tho they technically had no authority). This bull$hit coming from the PSU fans and Paterno's family holds zero water. And i'm so sick of the Paterno clan whining that "the NCAA should have waited instead of rushing to judgement - there are so many people who need to be heard from... blah blah". What a bunch of mushroom caps.

 

[Ts5034]

Recruiting violations are one thing but the APR is an off the court issue. It just does not make any sense that they cant use the most recent scores. I have a big problem with current players being punished for previous players so called poor "academic progress". Over the last 2 years these players have had great scores. They are busting their butts in the classroom and they arent even getting rewarded for it. They are paying the price for what happened years ago while they were still in high school.

 

[Tenspro2002]

Dude, dude, we know. It's an injustice, sure, but it's an injustice by accident, by coincidence, a consequence of the realities of how college programs can be punished.

What we're looking to point out is a malicious action by the NCAA, whereby they retroactively changed the punishment in such a manner that we had no chance of complying, without any opportunity to react to the new rule.

It's not enough to point out that our players are being wronged. We have to make the case that the NCAA is doing the wronging.

 

[sledog]

Never understood the number thing, Either the kid had a 2.0 (or whatever), or he didn;t. If he left for pros, or xfeed, so what?