NCAA unveils pro-violence policy

[DWFan]

The Oregon running back loses his temper, punches an opposing player and has to be physically restrained from going into the crowd to continue his rampage. The punishment? The university suspends him from playing for 3/4 of the season. He remains part of the team and keeps his scholarship. The NCAA? They do nothing.
The Florida defensive player deliberately tries to maim an opposing running back by gouging at his eyes. The punishment? The coach suspends him for one half of the next game and after college football fans raise a stink about how lienient the punishment is, the player voluntarily sits out the entire game. The NCAA? They do nothing.
The Okla State receiver tells a lie about having dinner with Deon Sanders and what does the NCAA do? A calendar year suspension from any activity with the team; no practice. no playing in games, no association with other teammates in any organized setting. They effectively end his college career.
It is evident from these examples that physical violence that could result in permanently disabling injury is totally acceptable by the NCAA and is actually to be encouraged as attempting to rip a person's eyes from their sockets is a bit more than throwing punches and trying to knock someone out; but obviously neither is a punishable offense in the eyes of the NCAA.
Maybe if the Okla State reciever had raped an opposing team's chearleader at knife-point, the NCAA might have turned a blind eye to him as well and might have even given him another year's eligibility. Oh, but he told a lie; and we simply can't have players like that in college football.

 

[LEaSH]

It's a money thing.

 

[jblomenberg16]

The Oregon running back loses his temper, punches an opposing player and has to be physically restrained from going into the crowd to continue his rampage. The punishment? The university suspends him from playing for 3/4 of the season. He remains part of the team and keeps his scholarship. The NCAA? They do nothing.
The Florida defensive player deliberately tries to maim an opposing running back by gouging at his eyes. The punishment? The coach suspends him for one half of the next game and after college football fans raise a stink about how lienient the punishment is, the player voluntarily sits out the entire game. The NCAA? They do nothing.
The Okla State receiver tells a lie about having dinner with Deon Sanders and what does the NCAA do? A calendar year suspension from any activity with the team; no practice. no playing in games, no association with other teammates in any organized setting. They effectively end his college career.
It is evident from these examples that physical violence that could result in permanently disabling injury is totally acceptable by the NCAA and is actually to be encouraged as attempting to rip a person's eyes from their sockets is a bit more than throwing punches and trying to knock someone out; but obviously neither is a punishable offense in the eyes of the NCAA.
Maybe if the Okla State reciever had raped an opposing team's chearleader at knife-point, the NCAA might have turned a blind eye to him as well and might have even given him another year's eligibility. Oh, but he told a lie; and we simply can't have players like that in college football.

My sister works for the NCAA (albeit in the Stats dept). I'll haev to ask her about this.

 

[jblomenberg16]

BTW, just wondering why you think this is a NCAA problem, and not a problem with the individual schools?

I'm a former NCAA athelete, and my recollection is that player discipline is handled by the individual member schools, not hte NCAA. The NCAA may issue sanctions against the member schools, but I don't think it can physically pass down any punishment for conduct, but can make decisions on eligibility based on certain rules violations pertaining to amatuer status, etc.

Will see my my sister has to say...

 

[aclark]

BTW, just wondering why you think this is a NCAA problem, and not a problem with the individual schools?

I'm a former NCAA athelete, and my recollection is that player discipline is handled by the individual member schools, not hte NCAA. The NCAA may issue sanctions against the member schools, but I don't think it can physically pass down any punishment for conduct, but can make decisions on eligibility based on certain rules violations pertaining to amatuer status, etc.

Will see my my sister has to say...

If I understand it correctly the coaches/athletic dept hand down the discipline, but only after it is signed off by the conference/NCAA officials. In the case of the FL. incident Urban Myers was told to handle it, but the SEC signed of on the 1/2 game suspension. So to answer your question, the problem lies with both the coaches/schools and the conference/NCAA.

 

[DWFan]

BTW, just wondering why you think this is a NCAA problem, and not a problem with the individual schools?

I'm a former NCAA athelete, and my recollection is that player discipline is handled by the individual member schools, not hte NCAA. The NCAA may issue sanctions against the member schools, but I don't think it can physically pass down any punishment for conduct, but can make decisions on eligibility based on certain rules violations pertaining to amatuer status, etc.

Will see my my sister has to say...

Because the NCAA is supposedly the ultimate authority here. Yes, discipline is usually left to the schools/conferences; but the NCAA can step in at any time and institute sanctions; either in conjunction with school/conference mandates or, if the action taken doesn't meet their standards, take disciplinary action of their own against either the schools or the player or both. (Remember the Duke soccer players accused of rape.) In the case of both the Oregon and Florida players, the NCAA did nothing at all. In light of their promoting sportsmanship at the start of the season (remember the NCAA this year dictated that the opposing teams meet at the middle of the field to shake hands prior to kickoff specifically to emphasize sportsmanship), the lack of any action by the NCAA with these two instances is perplexing to say the least.
Conversly, Oklahoma State/the Big 12 wasn't allowed the opportunity to take any action; the NCAA acted immediately on its own without any notification to the conference or the school until they actually imposed their sanctions. They even went a step further in announcing, at the same time, that any appeals would be summarily denied even though there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Okla St reciever during his visit with Sanders; the NCAA specifically said the action taken was because the Okla St player lied.
It is obvious in comparison, at least to me, that the NCAA considers a lie much more serious that a deliberate violent act intended to physically harm another individual.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Because the NCAA is supposedly the ultimate authority here. Yes, discipline is usually left to the schools/conferences; but the NCAA can step in at any time and institute sanctions; either in conjunction with school/conference mandates or, if the action taken doesn't meet their standards, take disciplinary action of their own against either the schools or the player or both. (Remember the Duke soccer players accused of rape.) In the case of both the Oregon and Florida players, the NCAA did nothing at all. In light of their promoting sportsmanship at the start of the season (remember the NCAA this year dictated that the opposing teams meet at the middle of the field to shake hands prior to kickoff specifically to emphasize sportsmanship), the lack of any action by the NCAA with these two instances is perplexing to say the least.
Conversly, Oklahoma State/the Big 12 wasn't allowed the opportunity to take any action; the NCAA acted immediately on its own without any notification to the conference or the school until they actually imposed their sanctions. They even went a step further in announcing, at the same time, that any appeals would be summarily denied even though there is no evidence of any wrongdoing by the Okla St reciever during his visit with Sanders; the NCAA specifically said the action taken was because the Okla St player lied.
It is obvious in comparison, at least to me, that the NCAA considers a lie much more serious that a deliberate violent act intended to physically harm another individual.

So by that Logic, should the Supreme Court be involved in every speeding ticket, DUI arrest, or domestic disput in which someone doesn't agree with the outcome? What about the really highly publicized ones?

To be clear, I don't disagree that there is a proper time and a place for the NCAA to become involved. However, I do think your logic may be a bit flawed in thinking that they should immediately become involved in each individual player discipline issues.

The meeting between the player and Deon Standards potentially violated his eligibility to participate in an NCAA sactioned sport, just as Kelvin Sampson's actions violated the NCAA contact rules for recruits, just as mulitiple players have been declared inelligible for accepting payments from alumni.

 

[Benny]

So by that Logic, should the Supreme Court be involved in every speeding ticket, DUI arrest, or domestic disput in which someone doesn't agree with the outcome? What about the really highly publicized ones?

To be clear, I don't disagree that there is a proper time and a place for the NCAA to become involved. However, I do think your logic may be a bit flawed in thinking that they should immediately become involved in each individual player discipline issues.

The meeting between the player and Deon Standards potentially violated his eligibility to participate in an NCAA sactioned sport, just as Kelvin Sampson's actions violated the NCAA contact rules for recruits, just as mulitiple players have been declared inelligible for accepting payments from alumni.

Because the judge doesn't have a vested interest in the person he is sentencing. If he does his job, he will be fair and impartial.

Do you think the school is going to be fair and impartial when determining a suspension on a player that is making them lots and lots of money for free(scholarship aside)?

I think not.



Suspended for 2 quarters for trying to gouge another player's eyes out? Puhhhlease.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Because the judge doesn't have a vested interest in the person he is sentencing. If he does his job, he will be fair and impartial.

Do you think the school is going to be fair and impartial when determining a suspension on a player that is making them lots and lots of money for free(scholarship aside)?

I think not.



Suspended for 2 quarters for trying to gouge another player's eyes out? Puhhhlease.

I don't agree with the players' behavior one bit, but I think it is ludicrous to claim that the NCAA has a "Pro-Violence" stance because they didn't intervene in these situations, or pass down a stiffer punishment.

Good thing we have Prez Obama now...eventually college sports will be government run and we won't have to deal with this kind of thing.

 

[Benny]

I don't agree with the players' behavior one bit, but I think it is ludicrous to claim that the NCAA has a "Pro-Violence" stance because they didn't intervene in these situations, or pass down a stiffer punishment.

Good thing we have Prez Obama now...eventually college sports will be government run and we won't have to deal with this kind of thing.

I don't think anyone was insinuating that you did agree with the player's behavior...Because if you did, this probably isn't the best place for you to be posting.

I don't think the NCAA has a "pro-violence" stance either, but they were has heck doesn't have an anti-violence stance either, which is a problem IMO.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Thanks for clarifying your stance. Sounds we're not too far apart in what we think on this one, but this is one of those posts where we're all better of just agreeing to disagree, and get on with more important stuff, like figuring out what Bigum did to break the rep machine.

Truce?

 

[DWFan]

So by that Logic, should the Supreme Court be involved in every speeding ticket, DUI arrest, or domestic disput in which someone doesn't agree with the outcome? What about the really highly publicized ones?

To be clear, I don't disagree that there is a proper time and a place for the NCAA to become involved. However, I do think your logic may be a bit flawed in thinking that they should immediately become involved in each individual player discipline issues.

The meeting between the player and Deon Standards potentially violated his eligibility to participate in an NCAA sactioned sport, just as Kelvin Sampson's actions violated the NCAA contact rules for recruits, just as mulitiple players have been declared inelligible for accepting payments from alumni.

Your last point first:
The Oklahoma State player did nothing wrong during the meeting with Sanders. The NCAA admitted that the only thing he did wrong was to initially lie about the meeting to them. Sampson was flat guilty of wrong doing.
I agree there is a correct time and place for the NCAA to be involved, and taking action against players who conduct willful attempts to physically attack and maim other players is one of those times. They went to the trouble to investigate a dinner meeting where no violations occurred, but do nothing about two players guilty of open acts of violence witnessed on national television? If a similar incident happens in the future and the NCAA decides to take action, all that player has to do is point to these two situations and ask "Why me when you did nothing to them?".
Lastly, I don't equate SCOTUS and the NCAA. SCOTUS exists and operates under the parameters of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. SCOTUS does not create law, but reviews existing laws and court rulings to determine legality. The NCAA exists of it's own volition and has no regard for individual rights. The NCAA creates rules as they see fit and, obviously, applies them without regard to equality or evidence.

CORRECTION: In my earlier post I said Duke soccer players...it was members of their lacrosse team.

 

[LPMan59]

silence is tacit approval. money talks.

 

[Benny]

Thanks for clarifying your stance. Sounds we're not too far apart in what we think on this one, but this is one of those posts where we're all better of just agreeing to disagree, and get on with more important stuff, like figuring out what Bigum did to break the rep machine.

Truce?

Absolutely.

Once again though, "truce" might be too strong of a word, as I think you may have misconstrued my posts in that they were not negatively geared towards you, because I was never really trying to argue with you in an aggressive manner.

I just feel that if the school isn't going to send down a proper punishment to these players who commit these heinous acts of violence, then the NCAA needs to step in...Not that you in any way, shape, or form, condone the behavior of those thugs.

 

[jblomenberg16]

Cool, thanks!

Absolutely.

Once again though, "truce" might be too strong of a word, as I think you may have misconstrued my posts in that they were not negatively geared towards you, because I was never really trying to argue with you in an aggressive manner.

I just feel that if the school isn't going to send down a proper punishment to these players who commit these heinous acts of violence, then the NCAA needs to step in...Not that you in any way, shape, or form, condone the behavior of those thugs.