Talk:University of Southern California athletics scandal

Learn more about this page

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

College football Bottom‑importance

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football articles
Bottom	This article has been rated as Bottom-importance on the project's importance scale.

College Basketball

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject College Basketball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college basketball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College BasketballWikipedia:WikiProject College BasketballTemplate:WikiProject College Basketballcollege basketball articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the `\|auto=` parameter.

California

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Penn State "appeal" edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I'm about to correct the copy that currently states that "Penn State ... was able to successfully appeal to the NCAA to get their sanctions lifted …". Those sanctions were reduced, not completely lifted, but this was not the result of an appeal by Penn State. The sanctions were reduced upon recommendations of the Academic Compliance office assigned by the NCAA (George Mitchell). Mitchell reported annually to the NCAA and on two occasions recommended specific reductions in sanctions, and the NCAA implemented his recommendations.

Meanwhile, the NCAA decided to sue the state of Pennsylvania rather than comply with a state law requiring the sanction's fine be distributed within the state. This suit backfired as the judge raised the issue of whether the NCAA had a legal right to impose the sanctions. The NCAA decided to settle the case, keeping the fine in place but complying with the law by having distribution of the fine controlled by the state government.

Prior to this settlement, and separate from the two earlier reductions, the NCAA had lifted all remaining sanctions except for the fine and vacation of wins. As part of the settlement with the state, the NCAA lifted the vacation of wins. The settlement included a revocation of the 2012 consent agreement and was replaced by a new consent agreement in which Penn State officials stated that the NCAA had acted in good faith in 2012, thus (apparently) absolving the NCAA of future legal action by anyone officially associated with the university.

I recognize this is an odd place to be discussing details of another school's sanctions. But the copy does mention it, and currently is incorrect the way it is stated. DiffuseGoose (talk) 16:24, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

McNair Lawsuit edit

Latest comment: 8 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I came to this page looking for information about the recent ruling (reported in early December 2015) in McNair's case against the NCAA. The judge apparently stated that the NCAA willingly ignored the truth (regarding McNair) to reach a pre-dtermined conclusion.

I'm interested in sports law in general, but haven't followed this case closely enough to do it justice by contributing to this page. I'm hoping someone familiar with the case *will* update it to reflect the recent ruling.DiffuseGoose (talk) 16:33, 10 December 2015 (UTC)Reply

Add topic