aSocietyofRules wrote:
I think what Princeton did was in poor taste and, if I were Yale, I would be angry at both Princeton and Harvard for apparently mutually agreeing to sandbag, to different degrees, a meet they had both tried at in previous years. Maybe they can sue for breach of contract, I’ve heard they have decent lawyers there. However, there has been little reference to actual rules in this thread so I’ll waste my time and bring facts and logic to letsrun.
As a sport the NCAA does not care about, the rules around XC
are frustratingly vague. is the NCAA rulebook on Indoor, Outdoor, and XC
for 2023-2024. The XC rules start on page 172.The Code of Conduct on page 9 states compliant athletes are "always honoring teammates and opponents with their best effort". Rule 22, page 194 then states (emphasis mine):
“Competitors who conduct themselves in an unsporting manner, who are offensive by action or language, or who are found to be in violation of the code of conduct, shall be warned or disqualified by the referee from the race and from the remainder of the meet.”
To me, running 6-minute pace enters the territory of “unsporting behavior” and is a clear violation of the code of conduct, particularly if they are clearly not trying, and the punishment is set forth right below: disqualification by the referee. The result of this is that Princeton would not have recorded a score at this meet and could not have counted it towards the required number of competitions to meet sponsorship requirements of the sport.
However, I have never encountered a referee at an XC meet and, if there was one at HYP, they did not do this. The other teams can appeal the violation, but Section 7 of Rule 21 states:
“Protests relating to singular matters that develop during the conduct of the race should be made at once and shall not be later than 15 minutes after the results have been announced or posted.”
We are well clear of the 15-minute protest window. This seems like a failure by a referee to properly enforce the written rules of a sport. Unfortunate, but not uncommon in the NCAA.
Moving on to broader NCAA rules, is the Division I 2023-2024 manual for all sports. If we refer to the Constitution, Article 1, Principles on page 2, we have Principle C:“C - Integrity and Sportsmanship. It is the responsibility of each member to conduct its athletics program in a manner that promotes the ideals of higher education, human development and the integrity of intercollegiate athletics. All individuals associated with intercollegiate athletics programs and events should adhere to such fundamental values as respect, fairness, civility, honesty, responsibility, academic integrity, ethical conduct, and the rules of their conferences.”
This debacle likely fails to show respect for their competitors, but this is not a rule and there is no stated recourse for violation of the Principles.
But let’s say you really want Jason Vigilante burned at the stake, as some people in this thread clearly do. Let’s assume this is an NCAA Infraction, a violation of an NCAA bylaw, which I do not believe it is. If you believe it is, find the bylaw. We then have three levels of Infraction, from more serious to less serious, on page 336.
Level I – “A Level I violation is a violation that seriously undermines or threatens the integrity of the NCAA Collegiate Model, as set forth in the bylaws, including any violation that provides or is intended to provide a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage, or a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit.”
Level II – “A Level II violation is a violation that provides or is intended to provide more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive recruiting, competitive or other advantage; includes more than a minimal but less than a substantial or extensive impermissible benefit; or involves conduct that may compromise the integrity of the NCAA
Collegiate Model as set forth in the bylaws.”Level III – “A Level III violation is a violation that is isolated or limited in nature; provides no more than a minimal recruiting, competitive or other advantage; and provides no more than a minimal impermissible benefit.”
I fail to see how this provides any benefit to Princeton, but maybe we argue it’s a Level III violation, for which the punishments are listed from the bottom of page 355 to the top of page 356. Most of the punishments have to do with recruiting violations, but ones that could be applied here:
An institutional fine for each violation, with the monetary penalty ranging in total from $500 to $5,000. For 5 athletes this would be max $25,000 against a school with a multi-billion-dollar endowment.
Institutional recertification that its current athletics policies and practices conform to all requirements of NCAA bylaws. a.k.a. Everyone has to sit in some meetings and agree not to do this again.
Institutionally imposed suspension of the head coach or other staff members for one or more competitions. Jason Vigilante has to skip the next meet. Robbie Andrews is still listed as their assistant coach, so he takes the team.
Public reprimand. The NCAA and Princeton release a one-page article saying this was all stupid and unsportsmanlike and it won’t happen again.
Nowhere in the rules do we possibly rise to the level of suspending the entire Princeton team or preventing them from further competition or removing Jason Vigilante from his role. I think the best course of action is for the Princeton AD to release a statement saying this was a mistake and JV has been scolded for it and we can all move on.
Thanks for this information. I certainly was not aware of all of this. It's a solid answer to the question that was posted earlier by Just Sayin': "Once again: WHAT rule in a non-NCAA championship meet did they break?
Kudos.
