Soxbadger

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:44 PM) But there are specific reporting and monitoring requirements that the NCAA requires schools to meet. When a school fails to meet those, the NCAA steps in and that's when the slapdowns occur. Usually you only hear about them when someone is discovered to have done something to gain a monetary/wins advantage, rather than just covering up a crime, but it's all the same in their rules. The big hit for the NCAA usually winds up being whether or not a school was promoting a "Culture of compliance". If a school avoids that, they avoid big penalties (Tennessee snuck away with no major penalties after the Bruce Pearl situation because they convinced the NCAA that they had adequate monitoring in place). Penn State literally sets a new bar for "Failing to promote a culture of compliance". People were scared that if they reported things they saw, they'd be fired. Right but the compliance usually is connected to some sort of tangible rule breaking. IE: To many phone calls, money, inappropriate contact during offseason. Compliance is usually not connected to, coach breaks law unrelated to sport, administrator breaks law covering up a crime that is unrelated to sports. Im trying to find another example where the NCAA put penalties on a school just for criminal conduct that was in no way related to money, and as of now I cant find one. (Edit) And the part about people being scared to report, that generally is more a whistle-blower federal thing, as opposed to NCAA.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:30 PM) No, it is that simple. It's just a matter of convenience to the protester, whether you'd ever admit that or not. It's easy for you to protest one, but not the other. An industry based on pollution and war, funded by war, death and destruction...but you're ok with that industry because it's convenient. While I won't invest in oil companies for moral reasons...I'll openly admit I use their products and support the death and destruction that industry leads too because it makes living my life easy/possible. Eh, convenience matters. If something is impractical, you cant do it. If something is practical, you can. As I said, if there were other options, Id use them. If CFA was the only supplier of food in the world, Id eat CFA. And Saudi Arabia isnt where I live, so I really just dont have the time in the day to fix every backwards country in the world. Dont even have time to fix the US.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:24 PM) Really, for the NCAA, this case is only unusual in that it involved the most grievous violations of their rules regarding oversight and creating a culture of compliance that anyone has ever seen. Regardless of the fact that there is a criminal case here whereas for example Ohio State and USC didn't have the criminal case, if the NCAA settled, it immediately sets the precedent for any other response to a rules violation. Its unusual because generally the argument for penalties are that the athletic team got some sort of tangible benefit from the bad behavior. It is also unusual because generally the NCAA does not suspend schools merely for a coaching/administrator breaking the law, in a way that is unrelated to sports (Bobby Petrino Arkansas, etc.) I think there is a legitimate question why the NCAA is involved at all. The only connection to the NCAA is it happened on PSU property. It literally has nothing to do with competition or anything that the NCAA normally governs. I have no idea, Im not even sure a school has ever sued the NCAA. There are probably hundreds of thousands of documents that govern this, Ive seen 0. This is purely theoretical.

Oh if only it was that simple. Unfortunately, Im not aware of any company that only sells "Non-Saudi" gas, so Im kind of stuck? Slightly different than CFA who has hundreds, if not thousands, of competitors.

QUOTE (KyYlE23 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 04:19 PM) The weird thing is, it isnt really PSU filing, is it? I havent even gotten into that, but theoretically a non-PSU entity could try and sue arguing that PSU could not have bound them to the settlement and therefore any consequences were unfair. Basically I have no idea. This is kind of unknown territory. The only thing I can say, is that when it comes to unknown territory, courts take their sweet ass time.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 03:58 PM) I can't imagine the NCAA would ever consider having a settlement after a lawsuit was filed in this case. That would effectively add an entire new level of vetoes to every other one of its enforcement actions and make it pretty difficult to enforce any rules at all, because the suspensions would always be delayed for x amount of time while the court appeal went through. If Penn State can force a settlement with the threat of a lawsuit that reduces their suspension or penalty substantially, then why can't Ohio State do it? And we're talking about millions of dollars in revenue associated with bowl appearances and conference titles, so there's plenty of reason to fight those legal cases. That would be the same argument any client makes as to why they shouldnt settle. The fact is you have to treat each case on its own. The uniqueness of the PSU case raises uncertainty, I never considered the NCAA settling before I typed it in that post. I was just giving reasons for PSU to file, I dont know what their actual plans are.

QUOTE (RockRaines @ Aug 8, 2012 -> 03:37 PM) I do not believe that is the same circumstance as a sports team's membership with the NCAA. They were essentially in a lawsuit against their employer. I have no clue about the facts, Im just saying that even a dead bang winner for the NFL took 2 years after appeals. Just as an example, it can take 6 months for an appellate court to even decide if they are going to hear briefs on case. This would of course be after some sort of ruling in the lower court, which at minimum could take at least 3-6 months (30 days to answer or otherwise plead, 28 days to respond to motion for summary judgment, 14 days to reply, 14 days for hearing). That is possibly a year right there, now I have no idea whether the Judge would stay the enforcement of the penalties, but this case could be extremely complicated and if PSU takes it to federal court, who knows how long it could last. Now I dont really see this as a great option, but if Penn State does file a lawsuit, I just think its going to be pretty complicated and take time. I understand there was a consent decree etc, but once again, I dont know the facts. If the BOT didnt follow proper protocol, it could call into question whether the person who signed the consent decree actually had authority to bind PSU. Youll notice I didnt even put discovery into that time frame, which can cause further delay. The point is, no one knows the facts. But lawsuits generally dont end very fast, unless there is a settlement. Which could be the actual goal here, as I doubt the NCAA wants to go through discovery, especially if PSU lawyer's start asking for information relating to other NCAA rulings. Just could be a real headache for everyone. So now that I think about that angle, maybe the threat isnt bad if you are just looking to leverage a settlement. Who knows.

Even if they have very little, a lawsuit can still gum up the works. Many people may have forgotten, but Kevin Williams and Pat Williams basically were able to stall a suspension for, I believe, 2 years by putting it into a Federal Court. The only reason not to fight is to just put it behind them. Unlike the Williams, this isnt a fight where they can simply try and wait out the clock.

ARgh economics fights are so futile.

Only 1 man I can imagine luring a young boy away from Tom Crean's love, and that man is Calipari.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 02:28 PM) I guess you don't know what eminent domain actually is? Or the fact that you just proved we have never enforced what we claimed at all, again proving me right? Im not sure what part of the declaration forbids eminent domain.

Up until a month ago I did not have a twitter or facebook. I do now for marketing reasons, but its under a pen name. Its just a major risk having my name associated with anything due to my profession.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 02:08 PM) Looks like just a few inches. Twss.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 11:41 AM) The cost is time, which is worth far more than 0$. And it did nothing. Occupy Wall Street was and is a complete failure. I was talking about CFA, not Occupy Wall Street. As for my time, it has whatever value I give to it. Not going to CFA, takes 0 time, posting on these boards while Im at work being paid, is really 0 time.

QUOTE (Y2HH @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 09:59 AM) *Some* protest has caused social change, not all. Occupy Wall Street did nothing of the sort. The only way you can fail or succeed is to step up to the plate and take a swing. Maybe this will do nothing, maybe it will do something. But the cost to me is $0, so why not try?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Aug 7, 2012 -> 10:01 AM) The irony is that you'll see most of the same arguments the left makes against the death penalty. -Does it really serve as a deterrence? -How do you evenly enforce it? My argument against the death penalty is that humans are imperfect and I wont be associated with the killing of an innocent human. How does that relate at all to whether or not motivation should be taken into account when giving a penalty.

To much competition for Morgan these days, Ill go with Sydney Leroux.

Wow Chinese rings gymnast just got jobbed and lost to a Brazilian. US girls gymnasts were shocked as well.

My kickball team is on a 5 game win streak, you can drink in the field. Kazaam.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 10:13 PM) Where did I say I was OK with that? And by talking to someone about killing your wife, I meant talking to someone about killing your wife FOR YOU. Forgot to add that. I dont know you are acting like conspiracy is okay, yet are going nuts over the additional hate element in a crime. And you can just make it a crime to pay someone to kill someone else, you dont need to add the conspiracy to commit murder charge. Murder for hire is illegal in and of itself, i believe.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 10:06 PM) You still have to have done SOMETHING. Talked to someone about killing your wife, bought bomb parts online after posting you wanted to kill XXX and so on. They get terrorists on that for conspiracy after they buy (fake) bombs from undercover officers. So they DID something, not just woke up one day and said to themselves 'i wanna blow up a bridge today'. Are you seriously taking this position? You are always so anti-govt, yet you are fine with conspiracy, which is legitimately one of the most controversial tools of the US govt. Wow, that is impossible to believe. Think about what you are saying: TALKED TO SOMEONE ABOUT KILLING YOUR WIFE That is the epitome of THOUGHT CRIME. The person did nothing but THINK ABOUT IT. They didnt even attack her. Now lets say they bought a knife at the store, is that a substantial act towards a felony (I think thats the requirement for conspiracy)? Maybe they just needed a knife. And buying bombs should be illegal in and of itself. Trying to purchase bombs (an actual criminal act) can be punished. Can I arrest anyone who buys a gun, because the only reason you buy a gun is to shoot someone, and that likely could be a felony? Sound logic. Im just blown away.

I mean here is the Illinois Code: Under Illinois Law, (720 ILCS 5/9-2), a person commits the Felony crime of Second Degree Murder when: (a) they commit the offense of First Degree Murder as defined in paragraphs (1) or (2) of subsection (a) of Section 9-1 (see above) of this Code and either of the following mitigating factors are present: Murder 1 and Murder 2 are the same crime, just different circumstances. I cant make this anymore clear.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 09:57 PM) You could try Conspiracy, but even there you are usually committing some sort of actionable offense, not just thinking about it. How are drawing up plans to commit a crime an actionable offense? A crime is something that happens, not something that you thought maybe could happen. Conspiracy is absolutely thought crime, because you are taking away the actionable offense. How do you know the person would actually do it? You dont, hence its thought crime.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 09:29 PM) You are charged with murder one or murder 2. Not murder, and a hate crime. The addition of hate crime does nothing to make the situation any better for anyone. Okay its just you have a misunderstanding. You can be charged with murder 1 and murder 2 in the alternative. Just like you can be charged with lets say murder 1 hate and murder 1 non-hate. Its not multiple crimes, its an additional element to the same crime. Its no different then assault or assault with a deadly weapon. The only possible hate "thought" crime would be something like "conspiracy to commit a hate crime" or "terrorist conspiracy", but then again most are fine with the conspiracy charge, which is technically thought crime, and what should be considered one of the most troubling ways for govts to abuse power. But once again, its well established in law that there can be factors that either increase or decrease the penalty.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 09:10 PM) He shot and killed people. There are laws against that. He hated people. There are not laws against that. His 'hate' can be used to determine a motive, but why should his thoughts mean an additional crime? Because hate is a motive, and motive can be a factor in how harsh the penalties are. Are you arguing that it shouldnt be more of a penalty, or that its duplicative as a law and therefore unnecessary? QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Aug 6, 2012 -> 09:11 PM) So you are punishing bad thought. Great. Bad thought is already punished. Murder 1 v Murder 2. Intentional arson versus non-intentional. If I purposefully burnt down a school, shouldnt I be punished more than if I accidentally burnt down a school? I really dont know where you are going with this.