Rumored Violations

[Rhode Irish]

Granted, I am not the most religious person of all time, but the number first commandment as far as I'm concerned is: Don't rat on your friends. Loose lips sink ships. Snitches get stitches. All of that. Would never and could never condone punishing someone for not telling on somebody else. Really the only thing about this that I could end up disagreeing with ND about.

 

[NDinTEXAS]

Are we suppose to hear anything today?

 

[ThePiombino]

Are we suppose to hear anything today?

lol

 

[SoDakDomer]

So cheating is only wrong if you're bad enough at it that you get busted on your own?

I'm pretty sure that’s not what he said. Cheating is wrong, but why should someone who is doing it right, get in trouble for not ratting on someone who is cheating. Since I've been two years old my parents and society have ingrained in me to not be a tattle tell/narc/snitch. When I saw someone cheating in college I laughed, mostly because all they were doing was cheating themselves out of a great education and opportunities to better themselves.

 

[JughedJones]

Are we suppose to hear anything today?

We should put something in the sports book. I'd lay odds that we do hear something pretty definitive by the end of the day.

 

[wizards8507]

I just fail to see why students should have an ethical responsibility to turn in anyone they suspect of cheating.

I don't think it's an issue of ethics at all. That's just the rule. The reason the rule exists is because ND wants to bust cheaters, not because they're enforcing an ethical imperative that witnesses come forward. There's nothing unethical about pass interference either, but it's still against the rules. Do you have an ethical responsibility to obtain a driver's license before operating a motor vehicle? Probably not, because ethics has nothing to do with it. But I bet you still renew that license every ten years, not because you'll go to hell if you don't, but because someone in a position of authority (the government, your university) says so.

In criminology, they refer to this as "malum prohibitum," or something that is wrong because it is against the rules. You're arguing from the perspective of "malum in se," or something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

 

[palinurus]

I've always seen the snitching aspect of honor codes to be self serving and in itself, dishonorable of the school for inserting it into the doctrine. The University essentially puts the onus of policing on its student body. Why is it dishonorable for someone to mind his own business? If they are doing everything the right way, why is it their responsibility to narc when that action itself puts them, an others, in harms way? There is both social and ethical concequences to turning in potential cheaters. Hell.. What if you are wrong? What if you thought they were cheating, turned them in, then have the committee find them innocent? Where is the honor in that?

The "Protecting the value of education" argument is BS, in my opinion. I don't see how it benefits anyone but the university. Turning in any potential improprieties later in life won't do these kids any favors.

Not sure if you are referencing my post here, or not. If so, I didn't use this phrase and I'm not exactly sure how you mean it.

Again, I don't think it's about fostering a network of spies. It's about inculcating students with the belief that academic honesty is mandatory and includes not looking the other way, not to get yourself off the hook (ratting), but because it benefits (in the long run) the other person involved, the institution (by maintaining standards), and indirectly yourself (as a student at that university). This attracts students who believe in this principle, and creates a culture of more honest academics. And that's good for everyone because:

(a) a university that eliminates cheating, plagiarizing, etc., and/or shows that it takes such offenses seriously, upgrades the value of its degrees, because outsiders (employers, grad schools, etc.) know that grades better reflect actual achievements (i.e., academic integrity, which directly impacts the value of a degree); and

(b) the education process, properly understood, is broader than just knowing skills and subject matter and, esp. at a place like ND (I'm told and believe, though I'm not an alumni, but have close ties to current and former students), covers the whole student, including his personal integrity.

I don't know if creating, and a being part of, a culture that impresses that academic honesty is paramount helps a person in the real job world or not, but having personal integrity does, or should.

Not saying this is easy or clearly applied and doesn't require prudence/wisdom/mercy in its application. Just saying that not having the standard is a surrender.

 

[SoDakDomer]

I don't think it's an issue of ethics at all. That's just the rule. The reason the rule exists is because ND wants to bust cheaters, not because they're enforcing an ethical imperative that witnesses come forward. There's nothing unethical about pass interference either, but it's still against the rules. Do you have an ethical responsibility to obtain a driver's license before operating a motor vehicle? Probably not, because ethics has nothing to do with it. But I bet you still renew that license every ten years, not because you'll go to hell if you don't, but because someone in a position of authority (the government, your university) says so.

In criminology, they refer to this as "malum prohibitum," or something that is wrong because it is against the rules. You're arguing from the perspective of "malum in se," or something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

We hire law enforcement officers to enforce these laws. We do don't strictly rely on the public to do this. How about people who ride with drunk drivers? Do the passengers get hit with citations for allowing the driver to break the law?

 

[BGIF]

...maybe you should have said something...

"GAME, SET, MATCH, Mr Wizards!"

 

[IrishLax]

Sorry if this was asked before - Would we have to vacate wins if the suspended players practiced and attended team meetings but didn't participate in the game?

In most cases, no. But this is a pretty gray area though in the rules. Usually you only vacate when you knowingly played a player in the competition itself that you knew was ineligible or reasonably could've expected to be ineligible.

However, in some cases its hypothetically possible to vacate wins if there is an institutional problem that lead to a competitive advantage in the game even if no ineligible players played in the competition itself.

The classic example given is if you brought in the New England Patriots to be your scout team when you knew they were ineligible for collegiate competition, then you're likely going to have to vacate the games where you did this to prep.

NCAA rules aren't black and white, but in general its good practice to hold ineligible players out of everything until you've got a definitive answer on their status. The problem here is this is usually a process that at most schools takes days... not months... to complete.

 

[wizards8507]

We hire law enforcement officers to enforce these laws. We do don't strictly rely on the public to do this. How about people who ride with drunk drivers? Do the passengers get hit with citations for allowing the driver to break the law?

Um... yes, in many cases. For example:

TEX PE. CODE ANN. § 38.171 : Texas Statutes - Section 38.171: FAILURE TO REPORT FELONY

(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) observes the commission of a felony under circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that an offense had been committed in which serious bodily injury or death may have resulted; and
(2) fails to immediately report the commission of the offense to a peace officer or law enforcement agency under circumstances in which:
(A) a reasonable person would believe that the commission of the offense had not been reported; and
(B) the person could immediately report the commission of the offense without placing himself or herself in danger of suffering serious bodily injury or death.
(b) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor.

 

[Irish Insanity]

We should put something in the sports book. I'd lay odds that we do hear something pretty definitive by the end of the day.

I'm down with a sports book with every day this week and also including who, if any, play this weekend.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

 

[BigIrish]

They are being held out of football to avoid vacating wins from playing ineligible players. It's not a "sanction" proscribed by the University.

If this were entirely accurate, then players should be able to practice with the team, no? After all, they're not even officially suspended.

There is at least one fact we can bank on as it relates to the investigation...first and foremost, none of the players will be completely exonerated. The official investigation concluded prior to the first game, and if there was a player who was cleared of any wrongdoing, they SHOULD have been immediately reinstated. To have held a player who was deemed to be innocent from a game (and potentially a second game) solely due to the slow grind of internal processes is, even for higher education, is unthinkable.

I continue to struggle with the rationale for not letting the players even practice with the team, which to my knowledge, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of vacating games. If someone can demonstrate otherwise, please enlighten me.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Alright, where would you set the over/under at this point? 24 hrs? Has to be right? We would've exceeded the full time for appeals, etc?

If we don't hear by tomorrow at noon, and assuming some are not guilty, I wonder if KVR & DD would still play? Or Ishaq?

 

[greyhammer90]

If this were entirely accurate, then players should be able to practice with the team, no? After all, they're not even officially suspended.

There is at least one fact we can bank on as it relates to the investigation...first and foremost, none of the players will be completely exonerated. The official investigation concluded prior to the first game, and if there was a player who was cleared of any wrongdoing, they SHOULD have been immediately reinstated. To have held a player who was deemed to be innocent from a game (and potentially a second game) solely due to the slow grind of internal processes is, even for higher education, is unthinkable.

I continue to struggle with the rationale for not letting the players even practice with the team, which to my knowledge, has no bearing whatsoever on the question of vacating games. If someone can demonstrate otherwise, please enlighten me.

From a coach's perspective I wouldn't want the distraction of having those 5 out on the practice field. Do they take first team reps? No because the other guys need to work. Do they take second string and work against the starting D and O? That seems to open up a window for dissent and poor effort on their part.

 

[Chi_IRISH]

From a coach's perspective I wouldn't want the distraction of having those 5 out on the practice field. Do they take first team reps? No because the other guys need to work. Do they take second string and work against the starting D and O? That seems to open up a window for dissent and poor effort on their part.

I couldn't agree more. I also think if there is anyway that these guys could be back for Saturday, they have game plans and scouting reports in hand!

 

[Emcee77]

From a coach's perspective I wouldn't want the distraction of having those 5 out on the practice field. Do they take first team reps? No because the other guys need to work. Do they take second string and work against the starting D and O? That seems to open up a window for dissent and poor effort on their part.

Oh that's a really good point. And, considering these players' uncertain futures, the coaches may prefer to hold them out and let the practice reps go to guys they know will be available on game day. What if you let them practice, but then all 5 players get expelled? Then you've wasted a lot of practice reps on guys you don't have. And if they get cleared, all 5 are extremely experienced, so they need the practice reps less than some other guys anyway.

 

[#1rish]

Over/under we get a resolution before this thread hits 600k views?

 

[ACamp1900]

IF the five players are not to return it also helps with the 'impact' on the team if they've gone through a large number of practices and even a couple of games without the players just kind of being there...

 

[Wild Bill]

From a coach's perspective I wouldn't want the distraction of having those 5 out on the practice field. Do they take first team reps? No because the other guys need to work. Do they take second string and work against the starting D and O? That seems to open up a window for dissent and poor effort on their part.

I would not give them reps during 11 on 11. I'd save those reps for the players that I know are eligible to play. They can still take mental reps during 11 on 11, participate in conditioning, individual drills and team meetings without being much of a distraction, in my opinion.

 

[Chi_IRISH]

Oh that's a really good point. Considering these players' uncertain futures, the coaches may PREFER to hold them out and let the practice reps go to guys they know will be available on game day. What if you let them practice, but then all 5 players get expelled? Then you've wasted a lot of practice reps on guys you don't have. All 5 are extremely experienced, so they need the practice reps less than some other guys anyway.

I just think that we are naïve to think that these guys (if possibly have a chance to play) aren't being brought up to speed on game plans and such. I understand its a new scheme, and new wrinkles are put in every week and you could bet all the v bucks possible that the staff is keeping these guys updated to cover their basis. Again assuming that these guys may possibly play!

 

[greyhammer90]

IF the five players are not to return it also helps with the 'impact' on the team if they've gone through a large number of practices and even a couple of games without the players just kind of being there...

I meant to say this too but you said it better. Bottom line: I think the players being in practice would be awkward for everyone at this point.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

This is crazy, no announcement yet...dafuq

 

[woolybug25]

I don't think it's an issue of ethics at all. That's just the rule. The reason the rule exists is because ND wants to bust cheaters, not because they're enforcing an ethical imperative that witnesses come forward. There's nothing unethical about pass interference either, but it's still against the rules. Do you have an ethical responsibility to obtain a driver's license before operating a motor vehicle? Probably not, because ethics has nothing to do with it. But I bet you still renew that license every ten years, not because you'll go to hell if you don't, but because someone in a position of authority (the government, your university) says so.

In criminology, they refer to this as "malum prohibitum," or something that is wrong because it is against the rules. You're arguing from the perspective of "malum in se," or something that is inherently wrong in and of itself.

It is presented as an ethical obligation because they put it in the honor code. It's not a "rules and regulations" or "student handbook", it's in the document that's sworn upon as the measuring stick for honor.

Comparing traffic laws or getting a license is completely irrevelavant to the conversation. But be sure to let us know how many speeders you call in today after work.

 

[greyhammer90]

This is crazy, no announcement yet...dafuq

I wouldn't have a problem with no announcement, but I've yet to even see confirmation that there has been any hearing so far. That's insane.

 

[Sherm Sticky]

I wouldn't have a problem with no announcement, but I've yet to even see confirmation that there has been any hearing so far. That's insane.

Yes you are correct and I agree.

 

[phgreek]

FWIW

Not saying what follows applies to the 5...But

OPTIONS=Ambiguity=unintended consequences

Say I see someone cheat...I tell them to turn themselves in....later I see them and ask, did you turn yourself in, and they indicate they had. I ask, what happened? The cheater says, professor told me not to do it again, not to discuss it, but I don't know whats going to happen.

At that point, in my view, this policy puts the student in a rather awkward position ... If cheater lied about informing professor, then what? If Cheater told the truth, and professor did not involve disciplinary process...then what...is the witness in jeopardy of not doing enough if he just walks away at this point? Seems like he could be...but should that ever be a potential outcome?

I believe academic integrity IS the responsibility of the students and faculty alike...but you simply cannot have a "list of actions"...and hope that works out.

as a student you should have 1 and only 1 action that DOES NOT involve faculty, or you are asking for kids to find themselves in untenable situations...

 

[Irish#1]

I was watching one of the UND.com shows (from this preseason) last night and it showed a locker room sign -- gold with big blue lettering:

"ND Football Team Commandments

1) Treat women with respect
2) Do not steal
3) Do not lie
4) Do not cheat"

I understand the point on not wanting to encourage "squealing" (which, to me, is giving up your buddy to save yourself, as opposed to taking action to uphold a principle that you follow or have said you would follow), or what I'd rather call "non-toleration," and that's why I think you adjust the penalty for violation based on the circumstances. But a society sends a message by both its laws and what it tolerates.

On the season preview show BK mentioned that he put that up when he came HC.

 

[Grahambo]

Snitches get stitches. Obviously, exceptions to the rule. But in this case, if what the rumors say is true, KVR is in the right, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk