There is already another thread started on this subject but I wanted to introduce this thread to make sure certain salient points of the NCAA's ruling and ND's response to that ruling are kept for posterity. A lot can be said about this ruling but the quick summary is this:
The NCAA ruled to uphold its original penalty. ND, led by Father Jenkins, vehemently disagrees with the ruling.
Here are the salient points Fr. Jenkins made regarding this ruling:
https://president.nd.edu/writings-a...m-the-president-on-the-ncaa-infractions-case/
The NCAA ruled to uphold its original penalty. ND, led by Father Jenkins, vehemently disagrees with the ruling.
Here are the salient points Fr. Jenkins made regarding this ruling:
- The NCAA is NOT an academic association generally responsible for the academic integrity of colleges and universities. It is an association that regulates academics in certain narrowly drawn cases involving students who are athletes.
- There are two types of cases in which the NCAA imposes rules and punishments for academic infractions: 1) When a representative of the university is complicit with cheating, 2) or when a student-athlete competes while ineligible
- ND originally disagreed with several initial assessments by the NCAA but agreed to accept some of those findings to expedite the case. In doing so they agreed to accept certain mandatory penalties, and agreed to be subject to possible discretionary penalties. It is the discretionary penalties that Jenkins and ND vehemently disagree with based on previous NCAA rulings and the fact the NCAA has clarified some of their rules since this case.
- Previously, the only instances in which the NCAA imposed a penalty of vacated wins is when a coach or administrator or, more broadly, a "representative of the university" helped an athlete to cheat, or when the institution fails to monitor or lacks control over its athletics programs
- The athletes who cheated received assistance from an undergrad student who was only a part-time assistant to athletic trainers.
- At the time of its original ruling there was no rule that defined how a part-time assistant who was also a student should be classified. Were they representatives of the university or not? The NCAA had discretion.
- Since the original ruling the NCAA has defined how a part-time assistant should be classified - such assistants are NOT considered representatives of the university. In other words, when the NCAA was forced to explicitly and universally define such a person they determined such a person should never be considered a representative of the university. If the same exact circumstances were to happen today the NCAA would, by rule without having any discretion, conclude that the student who helped the 3 football players cheat would NOT have been a representative of the university and would have automatically ruled in ND's favor. Student-to-student cheating is NOT a rules violation under the NCAA guidelines and never has been.
- Even when the NCAA had discretion in how to define the part-time student assistant, historically the NCAA had NEVER defined such a person as being a representative of the university. Again, historically the NCAA had only pointed to coaches or administrators who had a role in academic advising. The part-time assistant/student had no role in academic advising.
- ND pointed out that in every similar case in which the NCAA has imposed discretionary penalties they could point to a coach, administrator, or person who served in an academic role that helped an athlete cheat. There was no such person involved in this case.
- Given the situation above, ND asked the NCAA to explain why they would go against previous history and set a precedent in this case. The NCAA refused to give an explanation.
- Regarding the 3 players who were ruled by the NCAA to be ineligible to play, at the time they played they were, indeed, legitimately eligible to play.
- It was only after ND imposed its own Honor Code that the NCAA retroactively ruled the 3 players ineligible.
- By retroactively imposing a penalty the NCAA has created two scenarios: 1) Best case, the NCAA decision creates a random outcome based on how institutions interpret their own Honor Code, 2) Worst case, the NCAA ruling creates a strong incentive for institutions to change their Honor Code to avoid sanctions from the NCAA
- Another way to state the above point: The NCAA is coercing institutions to change their Honor Codes. This is not supposed to happen under any circumstances. By the NCAA's own directive, institutions are supposed to be autonomous when it comes to their own academic standards and how it handles students who may violate those standards.
- The NCAA recently and very publicly demonstrated that they have chosen NOT to ignore academic autonomy. They used academic autonomy as a reason not to impose severe penalties on North Carolina even though, as the NCAA said, it was "more likely than not" that NC offered fraudulent classes to keep athletes eligible.
- Jenkins and ND have vowed to work with other universities to introduce and adopt NCAA legislation to ensure the universities remain academically autonomous and will result in more fair and reasonable decisions.
https://president.nd.edu/writings-a...m-the-president-on-the-ncaa-infractions-case/
Last edited: