University of Maryland and ACC End Bitter Departure Lawsuits

University of Maryland and ACC Reach Legal Agreement.

Quick Reference: While this legal matter has been going on for what seems like ages, the ACC and Maryland have come to an agreement that will allow the monetary issue to be settled and the lawsuits to officially be dropped. This decision was a longtime coming and means that Maryland can refocus on its first official year in the Big Ten, while the ACC refocuses on their updated conference with the additional of Louisville and still fresh additions of Notre Dame, Syracuse, and Pittsburgh.

Check out the link above to get all of the details.

Advertisements

Greater Than the Death Penalty: The NCAA’s Reactions to the Sandusky Scandal

Released today were the sanctions imposed by the NCAA on Penn State in reaction to the child abuse scandal and cover-up by university officials, including Joe Paterno, the university presidents and the athletics director. This is actually not the end of story, as there will be additional court battles down the line for civil lawsuits by each of the families affected, but this could symbolically be the biggest penalty enacted on the football program and athletic department. Included within the sanctions are the following:

  • $60 million of fines, which will be used to set up an endowment for the protection of victims and families discovered in the future.
  • Revenues of approximately $13 million from Big Ten bowl proceeds over the next 4 years will be allocated to child protection agencies in the Big Ten community.
  • A 4-year postseason ban for the football program.
  • A reduction of 10 scholarships initially and then 20 scholarships per year for the next 4 years.
  • The opportunity for players to transfer out of the program without any waiting period at the potential new schools.
  • A wins will be vacated from the records between 1998 and 2011, including postseason play.
  • A 5-year probation of the program.
  • A partnership with a representative for academic integrity, as chosen by the NCAA board.

To say that these sanctions will make up for the wrongful acts is completely false. There is nothing that could be done to fully repair the damage to the lives of the victims and families. The scar that this leaves on the university and the Penn State community is one they will have to wear for the rest of their existence.

This combination of sanctions are actually unheard of, as no other schools has been penalized in such a crippling way. A “death penalty” ruling would have stopped the program for whatever time period of the committee’s choosing, but this will drop the program into a pit much deeper and difficult to get out of than “Hell on Earth” from The Dark Knight Rises. Players have the opportunity to leave the program, Penn State will be unable to recruit the same kind of talent they were used to and the decreased revenue will more than level their ability to compete at the D-Ia level for years.

It is about a culture change and punitive damages that can be used to support purposeful causes. Still, some of the elements seem to be out of place in the grand scheme of the situation. The financial penalties seem 100% justified, and everyone can be sure that there will be more forthcoming. The probation and the scholarship reduction both seem to support a reduction of support for the program during a time that they need to be taken off of their pedestal. The academic integrity partnership is one that should hopefully provide guidance toward a new direction for the program. Allowing the current and future players to leave and compete elsewhere provides a protection for those who no longer want to be associated with a tarnished program, while also taking another knock of the program off of the pedestal.

Where the potential challenges arise are with the penalties that do more to punish those not involved in the scandal than those who are. The process of vacating wins is something that is seemingly just for the record books, but the scandal had little to do with the team’s on-the-field success. One could argue that the cover-up protected Paterno and his crew from the possible limitations of recruiting and management if the scandal were unleashed sooner. All of this could have been avoided if they had simply reported Sandusky the instant they discovered his wrongdoing. Still, this penalty tarnishes the records of more than just Paterno and the program (which is justified). All of the players at Penn State will be associated with the scandal and their wins during this time period will be called into question, even from the symbolic standpoint. Also, if you are not going to impose the “death penalty” for such heinous acts, why take it out on the current players if they are able to perform at a championship level? The ability to transfer helps players take matters into their own hands, but the process could be more difficult that initially identified for these players to transfer.

It is important to keep everything in perspective, as even I had mixed reactions to the final announcement of the sanctions. The main purposes for the sanctions were to acknowledge the wrongdoing at the university, break the program from its pedestal and begin to rebuild anew. The struggles for the victims and their families have not ended with these sanctions or even the incarceration of Jerry Sandusky. At the same time, people in power at the university are ultimately the ones responsible for the wrongdoing, and it is challenging to think that their egregious actions (or inaction) are going to tarnish the history of the players, alum and community who knew not of the crimes, as well as the current players who saw Penn State as an opportunity for their future. Sandusky has left the ultimate mark of shame on Penn State and college sports, and Paterno and the Penn State elite did nothing to help their university community.

For ESPN’s reporting on the sanctions, please take a look at the link below:

Approaching the Problem with Alcohol: Reflecting on the UVA Tragedy

In a recent article in the Chronicle of Higher Education, Eric Hoover discussed the recent decision in the trial of a former UVA lacrosse player convicted of killing his girlfriend. While the defendant was found guilty of 2nd degree murder, his attorney was able to justify his behavior and action based on one key element: alcohol. Contributing to the defense’s testimonies were former teammates, coaches and his father, all of whom explained that they knew George Huguely had an alcohol problem and had gotten worse in the time closer to the heinous act. What is wrong with our colleges and society that we are too afraid to help someone who clearly has been identified to have a problem? When did being a “stupid drunk” (as his defense attorney claimed) become an excuse of irresponsible and illegal acts?

Alcohol has been labeled as a part of the college experience, but everyone can recognize that there is a controversy about what part it is supposed to play and what changes (if any) need to be made to fix the situation. From the student perspective, more students are actually engaging with alcohol at earlier ages and are coming into the college experience looking forward to less oversight from the parents, but not necessarily having their first taste of the drink. They believe that little to no accountability is necessary from police or university officials and that no harm comes from consumption. Administrators and professors are mixed on the subject but tend toward the side of regulating the access to and follow up for alcohol issues. Student affairs educators are probably the most significant group of university members who want to increase education and decrease dependance on the substance.

With this case coming to its conclusion, is there any way that people can continue to ignore the negative effects of alcohol and the need for regulation and accountability? The UVA case is not the first one to identify alcohol’s negative influence on decision-making and violent actions, but it adds a strong proponent against some previous arguments to lower the drinking age. A handful of university presidents came together to propose that schools are going about alcohol education incorrectly and proposed lowering the age down to 18. Doesn’t this just push the problem on high schools? Would this actually eliminate the problem on college campuses? Students would still come to campuses with less parental influence and the same expectations that alcohol is part of college. Lowering the age does not improve education or decrease excessive use.

To refocus on education, there is not just a need to increase the education about alcohol use, but also look at how to identify signs of trouble and what to do to get someone help. Many schools have adopted the amnesty initiative that allows students to bypass conduct hearings if they actively seek out help when a student is in trouble. This policy may decrease the barriers that scare students about getting help, but they still need to understand at what point their friend needs that help. Health & wellness, residence life and fraternity & sorority life  departments should continue to rethink the methods they use to reach out to students and give them the tools they need to make smarter decisions about consumption and approach individuals students may identify for having a problem.

In summary, the UVA trial reenergizes the conversation about addressing alcohol issues and even which issues are the mostly pressing. It would be a mistake to forget that in the course of identifying these current challenges, a young woman lost her life in a brutal fashion. The trial will not necessary bring true justice but I wish the best for her family and friends through this tough time.