Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Penn State sanctions

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • TheHamborgler
    replied
    "Penn State was informed of the sanctions on February 14, 2012"

    Heartbreak on Valentine's day... Ouch!


    Additionally, I see they make the claim that "Since its establishment in 1994, the Pennsylvania State University Mock Trial Association has grown to become the largest Mock Trial organization in the country."

    By what metric are they the largest?
    Last edited by TheHamborgler; March 2nd, 2012, 10:12 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • mocktrial96
    replied
    Originally posted by NoisePref View Post
    They may have temporarily taken it down, here it is though

    Edit: The link above should work.
    Reading this, I don't think AMTA took away bids because they thought the switching of teams harmed the power balance at the tournaments. I think it's very clear from the way they discussed the conflicting statements given by PSU students: they think Penn State lied. They got conflicting statements from various members of the team. It also seems clear that PSU violated the technical letter of the rules, even if there wasn't any major harm done. I think what the real issue they have is what they perceive as dishonesty. Whether or not Penn State was dishonest, I don't know. But it seems clear the AMTA board believed they were dishonest, and that's why the punishment was so severe.

    Leave a comment:


  • NothingButTheTruth
    replied
    The problem that I have with AMTA's logic here is that they're setting precedent for a standard where they can go back and tell teams that they didn't make their teams right! The rules state that teams should be based on "this year's performance", but AMTA in their reasoning based it on a) previous years' participation at ORCS b) the completely unreliable number of awards won and c) the absolutely absurd notion that club leadership implies talent in mock trial. I know a LOT of people who would disagree that an organization's officers are the best mockers. What bothers me is that making teams is one of the biggest liberties that an organization has, and AMTA gives a lot of freedom to make an honest assessment of the "best teams". Giving no definition of best team, allowing an organization to make their teams, but then going back and telling a team they picked the wrong teams based on arbitrary figures? I find that disgusting. Penn state was given a certain liberty to make teams according to AMTA's designations, and unless they egregiously disregarded AMTA's designations, they didn't break any rules. Their A team did better than their B team, did better than their C team, did better than their D team. How can you say they didn't make an honest assessment correctly? They earned two bids, and deserve to go on. AMTA undermined the established principle of team autonomy, and specifically made Hamilton a lot weaker than it should have been. In my mind, any team that advances has an asterisk next to it; what if penn state had been allowed to compete?

    Leave a comment:


  • Daddy Long Legs
    replied
    Does anyone know what AMTA means by "probation for the 2012-2013 season"?

    Leave a comment:


  • JayZ
    replied
    There is part of me that finds several items of AMTA's reasoning in the opinion disturbing. I can go on at length, but, for starters, the entire second page reads with an incredibly arrogant tone about how programs "should be run" and the "way we do things." Second, the use of individual awards in analyzing competitive strength infuriates me. The correlation between individual awards and determination of what makes the most competitive team is GREATLY flawed and has no place being anywhere near this second-guessing on PSU's tactics.

    Regardless, the ultimate conclusion does seem validated by AMTA's logic an reasoning. However, this further boasts my belief that we need to clarify the rule and standardize punishment. While I don't think the Board has engaged in dictating to a team how to run their program in this case (PSU did what they did to themselves) the opinion just increases the bad taste in my mouth that AMTA COULD adopt such behavior and I don't believe that is a "Good Idea" (TM).

    Leave a comment:


  • clustermock
    replied
    Originally posted by Nur Rauch View Post
    This is the one thing I kept getting hung up before:



    When Morris fielded un-stacked teams at the beginning of its seasons, we very deliberately used non-hierarchical names. We didn't want any students getting the wrong idea and thinking they were being placed on a worse team than someone else.

    When we stacked teams of equal strength (two A and two B) we used labels, and then arbitrarily chose one of the A to be a B and the Bs to be C and D. So I don't think that shows anything really. By this same logic you can put all your very best people on one team and designate it as "Stacked B" and then it is your B team even though strength-wise it is your A.

    I very much appreciate AMTA posting their reasoning. Thoughtful analysis by Nelmark.

    Leave a comment:


  • Dcannon
    replied
    While it was not necessary, I am glad they released a formal statement.

    After reading the PSU appeal and now the AMTA statement it paints a much clearer picture of what actually took place. It's unfortunate that this had to occur in the first place but I think it would have been a terrible precedent to let this go without punishment/an extremely unfit (lax) punishment.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nur Rauch
    replied
    This is the one thing I kept getting hung up before:

    Additionally, programs that desire to field teams of equal strength use team names along the lines of Law and Justice or Blue and White��something other than a label that suggests a disparity between the squads. In this case, Penn State referred to its teams not just as A, B, C and D, but as Stacked A, Stacked B, Stacked C, and Stacked D.
    When Morris fielded un-stacked teams at the beginning of its seasons, we very deliberately used non-hierarchical names. We didn't want any students getting the wrong idea and thinking they were being placed on a worse team than someone else.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoisePref
    replied
    They may have temporarily taken it down, here it is though

    Edit: The link above should work.
    Attached Files
    Last edited by NoisePref; March 9th, 2012, 02:12 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • NoisePref
    replied
    It's the first one under General tabulation. It's labeled "AMTA Statement Regarding Penn State Sanctions"

    Leave a comment:


  • clustermock
    replied
    Originally posted by NoisePref View Post

    Where? I don't get which link it would be under...

    Leave a comment:


  • NoisePref
    replied
    AMTA statement: http://www.collegemocktrial.org/mock/tabulation.php

    Leave a comment:


  • TensAllDay
    replied
    Originally posted by gaelmocker View Post
    But...............
    your C team outdid your B team that is equal to your A team at one of the tournaments used to show A and B to be equal
    Once again buddy, going against my morals, I feel it is my duty to correct your facts. The quote above is simply not true.

    We never used Fordham to show "A" & "B" were equal, and that was never part of our appeal because OUR INTERNALLY DESIGNATED "A" TEAM WAS NOT AT FORDHAM, they were at SWARTHMORE. (Also, AMTA only focused on A & B for the appeal b/c every school can only have 2 bids). The only reason why my team outperformed our "B" team was because we hit very low level competition and they hit higher level competition, such as Minnesota and Iona. Furthermore, the "B" team was missing its best witness, Alex Koury, who ended up being their highest scoring witness at Regionals (they also had an additional member on the team for Fordham, the same member who dropped off the team after being the lowest scoring witness).

    Also, as a point of interest, OF COURSE we sent an A & B team to Fordham. Do you really think Fordham was going to put PSU "C" and "B"? Have you ever been to a tournament that does that? I know I haven't. As someone who was involved with running a tournament, if a team sends two teams to your tournament, you register them as "Midlands A" & "Midlands B," regardless of whether or not the true "Midlands A" team was in the tournament at all. From my understanding, the best team from a school at any particular invitational has always been designated as that school's "A" team for the entirety of that tournament. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

    I understand if you want to post your opinion, but that is the second time you have fabricated facts. As for everyone who has offered their support, thank you and best of luck at ORCS !
    Last edited by TensAllDay; February 29th, 2012, 10:46 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • gaelmocker
    replied
    Originally posted by TensAllDay View Post
    I usually refrain from posting on here, but when the facts aren't right it becomes necessary. As captain of the internally designated Penn State "C" team, I can tell you that our team was listed as the "A" team at Fordham. This occurred simply because we showed up to the tournament five minutes prior to our internally designated "B" team (who was listed as PSU "B" at Fordham) and I registered my team first. We finished 6-2 and placed 3rd, and our "B" team (who faced much harder competition at the tournament) went 4-4-2 and finished 5th. All of this information can be confirmed by the Tournament Director at Fordham, Chris Darcy, and corroborated with our official rosters that were sent to AMTA. As for our internally designated "A" team, they competed at Swarthmore that weekend.

    Furthermore, in terms of the appeal, AMTA never questioned our designations to Fordham because they were made aware of the aforementioned information.

    End rant.

    My apologies i changed the "their" to "an" so that makes sense. As I said I don't think anything You have said or anything anyone on your program has said is not truthful, But Until Amta has released a statement people should hold judgement.

    But...............
    your C team outdid your B team that is equal to your A team at one of the tournaments used to show A and B to be equal and the same C team was sent to a regionals as your D team

    Leave a comment:


  • TensAllDay
    replied
    Originally posted by gaelmocker View Post
    Also Penn State failed to mention that they sent their A team to Fordham. Their A team went 6-2 while their B team went 4-2-2 Just throwing that out there.
    I usually refrain from posting on here, but when the facts aren't right it becomes necessary. As captain of the internally designated Penn State "C" team, I can tell you that our team was listed as the "A" team at Fordham. This occurred simply because we showed up to the tournament five minutes prior to our internally designated "B" team (who was listed as PSU "B" at Fordham) and I registered my team first. We finished 6-2 and placed 3rd, and our "B" team (who faced much harder competition at the tournament) went 4-4-2 and finished 5th. All of this information can be confirmed by the Tournament Director at Fordham, Chris Darcy, and corroborated with our official rosters that were sent to AMTA. As for our internally designated "A" team, they competed at Swarthmore that weekend.

    Furthermore, in terms of the appeal, AMTA never questioned our designations to Fordham because they were made aware of the aforementioned information.

    End rant.
    Last edited by TensAllDay; February 29th, 2012, 12:18 AM.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X