NCAA drops hammer on Penn State

[dcdevil2009]

ESPN is reporting from the NCAA presser $60 million fine, vacation of all wins since 1998, four year bowl ban, and the loss of 10 scholarships initially and 20 total each your for four years (not sure if that's 20, 30, 70, or 80 total). Wow.

[OldPhiKap]

Wow, NCAA acts swift and harshly. Two things I never thought I'd write against a major program.

Punishment probably deserves its own thread.

[dcdevil2009]

It's a good thing Penn State got record donations last year and hopefully it will continue so. A cynic might say that the donations show a failure to grasp what went wrong. On the other hand, the penalty money will have to come from somewhere and seeing as how football isn't likely to maintain its current $60 million in annual revenue, alumni donations will help the school avoid having to siphon money from non-athletic programs or financial aid. Now that the NCAA is getting its pound of flesh, hopefully they can put it to good use by funding anti-child abuse and victims' aid programs.

[blazindw]

ESPN is reporting from the NCAA presser $60 million fine, vacation of all wins since 1998, four year bowl ban, and the loss of 10 scholarships initially and 20 total each your for four years (not sure if that's 20, 30, 70, or 80 total). Wow.

From what I understand, they can only keep 65 players on the team on scholarship each year for 4 years and they can sign no more than 15 players to letters of intent (normally, it's 25).

I could be wrong on that though.

EDIT: Mark Emmert confirmed on a followup question during the presser: max 65 scholarship players on the team and can only sign 15 incoming players for the next 4 years.

[Atlanta Duke]

Here is the link to the consent decree signed by Penn State

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

I am glad the NCAA has allowed players to transfer without loss of eligibiity and particularly glad all wins from 1998 forward have been vacated. IMO a major motive by Paterno for the cover-up was to prevent disclosures that would have devastated the competitiveness of the football program, prevented Paterno from beating Bobby Bowden in their race to pass Bear Bryant as the coach with the most wins in major college football, and might have cost Paterno his job. Taking the win record back from that egomaniac is great.

Although the conduct justified the sanctions, I agree with Andy Staples from SI that the NCAA has tossed its standard procedures overboard by imposing sanctions so quickly

What happens the next time the agreed-upon process moves too slow for Emmert and he decides to play judge, jury and executioner for a different school? It's one thing when Commissioner Roger Goodell does that in a private business such as the NFL. It's quite another in the NCAA, which has a membership consisting mostly of public universities. Hopefully, Emmert will treat this like the emergency it is and hand back those powers as quickly as he grabbed them. Human nature and history suggest that isn't easy.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/22/ncaa-penn-state-decision/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a2

[porkpa]

Who gets the $60 million? Certainly not the NCAA I hope. If its to be distributed who gets it?

[Bluedog]

Who gets the $60 million? Certainly not the NCAA I hope. If its to be distributed who gets it?

"The $60 million fine, which Emmert said equaled one year of gross revenue from the football team, will be used to establish an endowment to help child sexual abuse victims."

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--penn-state-sanctions-mark-emmert-four-year-bowl-ban-60-million-fine.html

[davekay1971]

While I wholeheartedly agree with the harshest possible sanctions for Penn State, I have to notice the discrepancy between these sanctions and those at UNC. Granted that the abuse of children is a much more serious issue than academic fraud. However, the enforcement role of the NCAA is actually the prevention and punishment of academic and recruiting violations and fraud. For example, how many cases have we seen of major college football stars sexually assualting or physically assaulting coeds, those acts being covered up or glossed over by the university and university athletic programs, with no punishment from the NCAA? The NCAA has always maintained, in those cases, that those issues are outside the enforcement role of the NCAA. The NCAA is there to enforce recruiting issues, academic issues, etc. Athletic programs covering for athletes who rape women is a pretty heinous thing, too...but the NCAA has steered clear of stepping in on the grounds that those issues are outside of their enforcement mission.

So, at Penn State, we have a $60 million fine, 20 scholarships per year, 14 years of vacated wins, a 4 year bowl ban for heinous crimes and an equally heinous cover-up. No punishment is too severe, and I, for one, am more than happy to see the NCAA step in and act swiftly and harshly in this case, even though there wasn't any issue of recruiting or academic violations in question. Hopefully there will be further legal action against those (living) who perpetrated in the cover-up that allowed children to continue to be assaulted by Sandusky. They deserve jail time.

At UNC we have a head coach personally employing a tutor who is writing papers for his players, an assistant head coach who is a runner for an agent, an agent in the AA studies department, a department head giving As and Bs to football players for courses in which they never wrote papers or attended a class...rampant academic and recruiting fraud (what the NCAA is supposed to be enforcing) at a university level...and a slap on the wrist from the NCAA.

It begs the question, to what level does publicity affect the NCAA's actions in these two cases. A horror story that has grabbed national headlines, versus one of the worst cases of academic fraud in 30 years that happened at a relatively irrelevant football program.

[Atlanta Duke]

It begs the question, to what level does publicity affect the NCAA's actions in these two cases. A horror story that has grabbed national headlines, versus one of the worst cases of academic fraud in 30 years that happened at a relatively irrelevant football program.

New York Times article on the sanctions notes that the NCAA had motivation aside from the horrific nature of the crimes to blow up Penn State football

[Former Big 12 commissioner Dan] Beebe said that the N.C.A.A. has struggled to appear relevant recently while dealing with some of the major issues surrounding college sports, including high-profile cases of rules violations and conference realignment, and that the organization expressed a sincere interest in being more proactive at a retreat in Indianapolis last year.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/24/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-penalties-include-60-million-fine-and-bowl-ban.html?hp

[Turk]

blah blah blah NCAA blah blah blah money blah blah blah...

NCAA doing what it does best - kicking someone who is already down and either can't or won't fight back.

$60 million? They're already looking at $100+ million in civil liability. A big nut, for sure, but it won't break the bank. Penn State is still the biggest game in Pennsylvania, and they'll still be on TV and get their cut of conference money.

65 schollys? If you have 48, you can still have two complete strings, even with backups for the kicker and punter. How many do you really need? They'll still win their gimme games and beat Indiana and Northwestern. Ohio State and Michigan will continue to mash them no different than before, and the visiting fans will fill up any empty seats in Beaver Stadium; it's a lovely place for a road trip in the fall.

Vacated wins? Are they going to reprint all the Sunday newspapers to say Bowling Green 1, Penn State 0? Are all 100,000+ fans who went to the game (and were sober enough to remember who actually won) going to say, "What an embarassing upset! I'm not going to any more games if they keep playing like that!"

"The Penn State athletic program will also be put on five-year probation and must work with an athletic-integrity monitor of NCAA's chosing." Oooooh... I think Dean Ferber might be available...

Fine, the NCAA had their splash of media coverage. Now go away and write some more weird rules that nobody can understand, or maybe take some time to figure out what to do about UVa, who let a murderer run loose on campus for a while. They can't put this genie back in the bottle...

[miramar]

It begs the question, to what level does publicity affect the NCAA's actions in these two cases. A horror story that has grabbed national headlines, versus one of the worst cases of academic fraud in 30 years that happened at a relatively irrelevant football program.

I have no problem with the punishment, but I have to wonder if the NCAA is finally going to take their policing function seriously or if they are just piling on.

With the recent problems at UVa and Penn State, it seems that American universities are headed for some interesting times, to say the least.

[Turk]

It begs the question, to what level does publicity affect the NCAA's actions in these two cases. A horror story that has grabbed national headlines, versus one of the worst cases of academic fraud in 30 years that happened at a relatively irrelevant football program.

I think the answer to the question is obvious, and you've answered it. I'll toss out one more: What do you think would be happening if it was the UNC basketball program who were the prime beneficiaries? I'm pretty sure we all know the answer to that one too...

[hood7]

I agree with everything davekay1971 said, except I disagree with limiting the academic/athletic fraud discussion to just UNC football. UNC basketball players have clearly benefited from the slide-through-for-diploma structure that has been in place at UNC. I suspect that it's the involvement of cash cow UNC Basketball that prevents the NCAA from taking the appropriate steps with UNC. There is plenty of evidence out in the public eye right now, and UNC's reasons for fighting so hard in court to keep Butch Davis's cellphone records (and other UNC documents) secret are transparently self-preservational, but the NCAA (and most of the national press) do nothing about any of it.

It's infuriating, but then this is a Penn State thread and not a UNC thread. The fury today belongs to PSU. Tomorrow UNC should get what it deserves. But I won't be holding my breath.

[duke86]

I don't normally post much on these boards, but this is something that I've followed since the beginning, especially since I have had family graduate from PSU. I do not agree with the sanctions and financial penalities. The "death-penalty" would have been much easier to handle, especially for the entire Athletic Department. I've always had an issue with vacating wins and post-season bans, especially when it actually only hurts the players that are currently on the roster and future prospects. The players on the PSU football team from 1998 to 2011 did not committ any wrongdoing and actually are being blamed for something that their defensive coordinator did and their university officials "covered-up". It's ridiculous. This will hurt the Athletic Department, as a whole.

I am not saying that penalities weren't needed or warranted, but they could have just fined them loads of money and if you want to take JoePa's record away, so be it. Though, he and his team STILL won those games, it wasn't because of any recruiting foul or anything else, so I will still consider JoePa the all-time wins leader until someone gets 410.


Here is the link to the consent decree signed by Penn State

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/20120723/21207236PDF.pdf

I am glad the NCAA has allowed players to transfer without loss of eligibiity and particularly glad all wins from 1998 forward have been vacated. IMO a major motive by Paterno for the cover-up was to prevent disclosures that would have devastated the competitiveness of the football program, prevented Paterno from beating Bobby Bowden in their race to pass Bear Bryant as the coach with the most wins in major college football, and might have cost Paterno his job. Taking the win record back from that egomaniac is great.

Although the conduct justified the sanctions, I agree with Andy Staples from SI that the NCAA has tossed its standard procedures overboard by imposing sanctions so quickly

What happens the next time the agreed-upon process moves too slow for Emmert and he decides to play judge, jury and executioner for a different school? It's one thing when Commissioner Roger Goodell does that in a private business such as the NFL. It's quite another in the NCAA, which has a membership consisting mostly of public universities. Hopefully, Emmert will treat this like the emergency it is and hand back those powers as quickly as he grabbed them. Human nature and history suggest that isn't easy.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/22/ncaa-penn-state-decision/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a2

[moonpie23]

Though, he and his team STILL won those games, it wasn't because of any recruiting foul or anything else, so I will still consider JoePa the all-time wins leader until someone gets 410.

is reggie still the heisman winner?

[duke86]

is reggie still the heisman winner?

Always a fan of these type of replies...

Reggie Bush and his family received gifts (I believe it was near $300k) and thus committed a HUGE student-athlete NCAA violation.

Were any of the PSU football players faulted in the Freeh report? I think not.

[Ping Lin]

I don't normally post much on these boards, but this is something that I've followed since the beginning, especially since I have had family graduate from PSU. I do not agree with the sanctions and financial penalities. The "death-penalty" would have been much easier to handle, especially for the entire Athletic Department. I've always had an issue with vacating wins and post-season bans, especially when it actually only hurts the players that are currently on the roster and future prospects. The players on the PSU football team from 1998 to 2011 did not committ any wrongdoing and actually are being blamed for something that their defensive coordinator did and their university officials "covered-up". It's ridiculous. This will hurt the Athletic Department, as a whole.

I am not saying that penalities weren't needed or warranted, but they could have just fined them loads of money and if you want to take JoePa's record away, so be it. Though, he and his team STILL won those games, it wasn't because of any recruiting foul or anything else, so I will still consider JoePa the all-time wins leader until someone gets 410.

I'm sorry, but the taking away of wins is a logical move as well.

Think -- if Sandusky had been reported as he should have, PSU would have had the crushing weight of a criminal investigation to deal with, as well as the damage to its image of having a pedophile predator as part of its organization, and so on. These would have had a marked effect on recruiting, training, what have you. The reason Sandusky was allowed to slide and hurt more kids was because the people in charge feared all that damage and preferred to preserve the competitive edge.

Take them away.

[OldPhiKap]

is reggie still the heisman winner?

Yeah, but the Heisman is a voted-upon award.

Wins are wins.

Barry Bonds has 762 career home runs, and hit 73 in a single season, whether I like it or not.


(For the record, I do not have a problem with the NCAA vacating the wins for some of the reasons previously stated. But it is questionable when the NCAA does this for non-performance-related violations. Maybe this signals a shift for the NCAA to become relevant again, which is a good thing IMO).

[Duvall]

Although the conduct justified the sanctions, I agree with Andy Staples from SI that the NCAA has tossed its standard procedures overboard by imposing sanctions so quickly

What happens the next time the agreed-upon process moves too slow for Emmert and he decides to play judge, jury and executioner for a different school? It's one thing when Commissioner Roger Goodell does that in a private business such as the NFL. It's quite another in the NCAA, which has a membership consisting mostly of public universities. Hopefully, Emmert will treat this like the emergency it is and hand back those powers as quickly as he grabbed them. Human nature and history suggest that isn't easy.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/andy_staples/07/22/ncaa-penn-state-decision/index.html?sct=cf_t11_a2

I doubt this sets much of a precedent one way or the other. Very few cases will involve a report of investigation whose findings were commissioned and accepted by the university's governing board.

[DukeSean]

I'm sorry, but the taking away of wins is a logical move as well.

Think -- if Sandusky had been reported as he should have, PSU would have had the crushing weight of a criminal investigation to deal with, as well as the damage to its image of having a pedophile predator as part of its organization, and so on. These would have had a marked effect on recruiting, training, what have you. The reason Sandusky was allowed to slide and hurt more kids was because the people in charge feared all that damage and preferred to preserve the competitive edge.

Take them away.

Agreed. I feel bad for the players who didn't do anything wrong, but sometimes innocent people get blowback (e.g., Enron). But you can't levy punishment in this case without collateral damage. Such is life.

[CameronBornAndBred]

It begs the question, to what level does publicity affect the NCAA's actions in these two cases. A horror story that has grabbed national headlines, versus one of the worst cases of academic fraud in 30 years that happened at a relatively irrelevant football program.

Carolina should be very happy that they got busted before the mess at Penn State broke, otherwise it may have been a harsher outcome for them.


"We cannot look to NCAA history to determine how to handle circumstances so disturbing, shocking and disappointing," Emmert said in the statement. "As the individuals charged with governing college sports, we have a responsibility to act. These events should serve as a call to every single school and athletics department to take an honest look at its campus environment and eradicate the 'sports are king' mindset that can so dramatically cloud the judgment of educators."
http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998

[moonpie23]

Always a fan of these type of replies...

Reggie Bush and his family received gifts (I believe it was near $300k) and thus committed a HUGE student-athlete NCAA violation.

Were any of the PSU football players faulted in the Freeh report? I think not.

no, my point being, if it's vacated, or taken away, do you always overlook that?

[Atlanta Duke]

Always a fan of these type of replies...

Reggie Bush and his family received gifts (I believe it was near $300k) and thus committed a HUGE student-athlete NCAA violation.

Were any of the PSU football players faulted in the Freeh report? I think not.

No - just the athletic director and sainted head coach who spent decades spouting off about what a clean program he ran (I grew up in Pittsburgh and recall gems from Paterno such as his need to stay around to protect college football from the Barry Switzers and Jackie Sherrills of the world)

Even assuming the NCAA would have done nothing in terms of sanctions if Sandusky would have been outed in 1998 or 2001, are you actually contending the disclosure of a pedophile being embedded in the football program for decades would not have had a significant adverse imnpact on the image of the program and recruiting?

Having someone take the SAT for a recruit, paying players and enrolling players in no show courses is intended to achieve a competitive advantage on the field. Keeping Sandusky's crimes under wraps and maintaining the image of Penn State as a pristine program resulted in Penn State not having its competitiveness severely wounded by that news getting out.

Unless yoiu are contending the cover up was motivated solely to protect Sandusky, it is difficult to contend Penn State was not acting to protect the continued success of the football program and therefore should be sanctioned by the NCAA for that egregious misconduct.

[duke86]

I'm sorry, but the taking away of wins is a logical move as well.

Think -- if Sandusky had been reported as he should have, PSU would have had the crushing weight of a criminal investigation to deal with, as well as the damage to its image of having a pedophile predator as part of its organization, and so on. These would have had a marked effect on recruiting, training, what have you. The reason Sandusky was allowed to slide and hurt more kids was because the people in charge feared all that damage and preferred to preserve the competitive edge.

Take them away.

I just am not a fan of thinking in hypotheticals or what ifs. We would never know. I just think if you are a fan of college sports, you should be VERY concerned about the power the NCAA just exhibited. Never did the actions of JoePa or Uni officials alter or threaten the amateur status of the student-athletes of PSU Football team, and thus I'm still surprised the President of NCAA was able to deliver this type of punishment. If it came from the Big 10 Commissioner's office in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised, especially since the Charter has more character clauses.

[duke86]

no, my point being, if it's vacated, or taken away, do you always overlook that?

No, I look at each case, separately.

[Atlanta Duke]

I just am not a fan of thinking in hypotheticals or what ifs. We would never know.

Actually we do know. Penn State's recruiting success went off the cliff after this came out last November before the NCAA dropped the hammer.

[CameronBlue]

Yeah, but the Heisman is a voted-upon award.



(For the record, I do not have a problem with the NCAA vacating the wins for some of the reasons previously stated. But it is questionable when the NCAA does this for non-performance-related violations. Maybe this signals a shift for the NCAA to become relevant again, which is a good thing IMO).

In announcing the decision Ray cited language in the NCAA by-laws intimating that the NCAA believes policing the culture of college sports is central to its mission; when you are trying to create a "level playing field" you've set yourself up to be the watchdog for morality and ethics. The point is that it's surprising that the NCAA HASN'T levied sanctions for non-performance-related violations more frequently. I guess the corrupting influence of money is viewed differently when it comes what is and isn't within ethical bounds. The extreme egregiousness of Sandusky's crimes will give the NCAA cover on this one but I suspect that they will continue to struggle with the "business" of college football.

Maybe it was just me but Ray seemed to intimate however that the NCAA's decision was also intended to send a message to all of college football that the academic mission of higher education has been compromised and this decision is in part an attempt to restore balance. If that's true, good luck wtih that one Mr. Ray.

[Mal]

I'm sorry, but the taking away of wins is a logical move as well.

Think -- if Sandusky had been reported as he should have, PSU would have had the crushing weight of a criminal investigation to deal with, as well as the damage to its image of having a pedophile predator as part of its organization, and so on. These would have had a marked effect on recruiting, training, what have you. The reason Sandusky was allowed to slide and hurt more kids was because the people in charge feared all that damage and preferred to preserve the competitive edge.

Take them away.

I agree with this - there may very well be a causal connection between the coverup and Paterno's additional wins in those 14 seasons. In addition to the immediate recruiting and program image/prestige issues that would have arisen, had this news come out in 1998, right before Penn State had three or four consecutive poor seasons, it's significantly more likely Paterno would have been put out to pasture around 2003 when the whole world was proclaiming the game had passed him by. Whatever internal power dynamic was there that kept him in his position through that period may very well have been eroded had things come to light at the proper time. (Of course it's possible he would have even increased his esteem and position by rooting out the problem; we'll never know)

The vacation of wins is largely symbolic as it regards former players, who know they played hard and won the games that will now show in the record books as vacated. This won't make anyone think less of LaVar Arrington as a player, and no one's going to come collecting their Big Ten Champions caps or whatever other trophies or mementos players may have received. On the other hand, symbolic though it may be, the individual coaching records are a little different in most peoples' minds, I think. Just ask any UNC fan about men's basketball individual coaching records - they may have a rather strong opinion. ;)

On another note, I wish there were a way to enforce that any wealthy alums wanting to pony up money to help the athletic department pay the $60M fine be told that their contributions could only go to academic purposes, not a get out of jail free card. Alas, money is fungible. I guess at the end of the day the designated charitable cause is going to get $60M either way, which is a good thing, but I wonder if the pain inflicted on the university monetarily will end up being chipped away by people who still prioritize football over all else.

[CameronBornAndBred]

Unless yoiu are contending the cover up was motivated solely to protect Sandusky, it is difficult to contend Penn State was not acting to protect the continued success of the football program and therefore should be sanctioned by the NCAA for that egregious misconduct.
Yup, and that's exactly why they got appropiately slammed.

''Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,'' Emmert said.
http://msn.foxsports.com/collegefootball/story/penn-state-punishment-jerry-sandusky-sex-abuse-scandal-072312

[moonpie23]

No, I look at each case, separately.

that's a lot of work.....does the ncaa send you a check? are you a 1099? or W2?

just curious...

[duke86]

that's a lot of work.....does the ncaa send you a check? are you a 1099? or W2?

just curious...

must love the sarcasm and belittlement, always appreciated.

I still do not believe it is the NCAA's job to be the culture police. If that is the case, a lot of SEC and ACC schools should be a wee bit concerned.

Amateur status was never questioned or violated. Big Ten could have handed these violations down and it would have been more approriate. Avoiding the so-called "death penalty" has now made sure PSU will be hurting for the next decade or so, which affects all of their student-athletes (current and future) and their other students.

Something needed to be done and things need to change, I disagree with the way the NCAA handled this case.

[throatybeard]

Am I wrong, or does this effectively cripple Penn State's non-revenue sports?

[Chicago 1995]

Am I wrong, or does this effectively cripple Penn State's non-revenue sports?

PSU agreed the $$ wouldn't come from non-revenue sports.

[duke86]

Am I wrong, or does this effectively cripple Penn State's non-revenue sports?

Exactly right. This is a huge blow to the PSU Athletic Department, not just the football program.

[duke86]

PSU agreed the $$ wouldn't come from non-revenue sports.

that doesn't mean the money that you make from the football program (the bowls, sponsorships, gamedays, etc.) only goes to the football program. Imagine if our basketball program couldn't generate the revenues it has for the past 20 years or so...other programs would actually suffer.

[Chicago 1995]

I just am not a fan of thinking in hypotheticals or what ifs. We would never know. I just think if you are a fan of college sports, you should be VERY concerned about the power the NCAA just exhibited. Never did the actions of JoePa or Uni officials alter or threaten the amateur status of the student-athletes of PSU Football team, and thus I'm still surprised the President of NCAA was able to deliver this type of punishment. If it came from the Big 10 Commissioner's office in Chicago, I wouldn't be surprised, especially since the Charter has more character clauses.

If the NCAA is merely there to preserve amatuerism, then disband it. Did this effect amateurism? No. Did PSU preserving the image of program and avoiding a scandal for 11 years provide a competative advantage? Of course. If it didn't, why the cover-up.

The cover-up here struck at the heart of the basic goals and purposes the NCAA espouses in promoting college athletics, and if the NCAA did nothing here, the organization would have had to have shuttered. Punishing UNC for phony classes or Miami for providing extra benefits to its FB players looks especially hollow if the NCAA stood silent in the face of a cover-up of a serial pedophile.

Penn State, for lack of a better term "submitted itself to the jurisdiction of the court" and that by signing the consent decree, these were agreed upon sanctions. I'd also note that Penn State commissioned the Freeh Report, making this a unique case where an investigation done by the University and made public was more thorough and complete than anything the NCAA could have done. I don't think there is a great risk of the NCAA stepping outside its normal processes on a regular basis because of the unique nature of this case. I do expect the NCAA by-laws will be amended to make clear the NCAA has this power in the future, but I think it's going to take a pretty unique case to have them exercise it.

[Chicago 1995]

that doesn't mean the money that you make from the football program (the bowls, sponsorships, gamedays, etc.) only goes to the football program. Imagine if our basketball program couldn't generate the revenues it has for the past 20 years or so...other programs would actually suffer.

PSU's said, however, it's not going to effect the funding. They've agreed to all of this. They're going to have to make it work, despite the loss of $15M per year for the next 5 years. Given the recent fundraising drive and all the $$ PSU has made from FB, they can handle it.

[hurleyfor3]

Anything PSU can't raise from boosters will probably come out of the endowment. I highly doubt the athletic department has $60m of its own free cash floating around that isn't being used to underwrite scholarships, facility maintenance and the like.

[burnspbesq]

Can't find it to quote from it, but someone alluded to the fact that no sanctions were imposed on the UVa men's lacrosse program in the Huguely matter.

The two cases are easily distinguishable. There is no evidence that UVa did anything to impede the investigation of Yeardley Love's death or the subsequent prosecution of Huguely.

It's fair to point moral fingers at Dom Starsia, who seems to have been the only person in the entire college lax world who didn't know that George Huguely had an alcohol problem and was a violent drunk. But in terms of compliance or non-compliance with NCAA rules, the cases are not comparable.

[crimsonandblue]

Anything PSU can't raise from boosters will probably come out of the endowment. I highly doubt the athletic department has $60m of its own free cash floating around that isn't being used to underwrite scholarships, facility maintenance and the like.

I believe it's $60 Million paid over 5 years. They can probably scrape together $12 Million a year out of their couch cushions.

[COYS]

Can't find it to quote from it, but someone alluded to the fact that no sanctions were imposed on the UVa men's lacrosse program in the Huguely matter.

The two cases are easily distinguishable. There is no evidence that UVa did anything to impede the investigation of Yeardley Love's death or the subsequent prosecution of Huguely.

It's fair to point moral fingers at Dom Starsia, who seems to have been the only person in the entire college lax world who didn't know that George Huguely had an alcohol problem and was a violent drunk. But in terms of compliance or non-compliance with NCAA rules, the cases are not comparable.

I think this distinction is right on. As is so often the case, the cover up is the worst crime. As horrible as it was for Sandusky to have done what he did in '98 (and, unfortunately, many times before then), that the people in charge allowed it to happen again and actively worked to make sure the crimes went unpunished is truly terrible.

Personally, I'm undecided about the "rightness" of the NCAA sanctions. However, I do think it's clear that the crimes committed by Penn State were very severe. There really isn't an analogous offense out there.

[Bluedog]

Can't find it to quote from it, but someone alluded to the fact that no sanctions were imposed on the UVa men's lacrosse program in the Huguely matter.

Jay Bilas used this comparison this morning on Mike and Mike on ESPN Radio. He argued that the NCAA shouldn't impose any penalties on Penn State because it's a criminal matter and those that have culpability are already being severely punished. And for those arguing that the NCAA needs to impose sanctions as a deterrent, Jay argued that the criminal ramifications are enough of a deterrent and any NCAA sanction would pale in comparison. Not only did Jay mention UVa when making this argument, but of course he had to mention his alma mater and the Duke lacrosse case...where he said there "were serious mishandlings" and the NCAA didn't impose anything. I do not find the Duke lacrosse case parallel to this case at all, so didn't find that comparison particularly compelling.

[-bdbd]

Does anybody else find it ironic that, with Joe Pa losing his status as the wiiningest coach in NCAA D1 history due to the forfeit of 13 years of wins, the new "winningest coach" becomes the ACC's own Bobby Bowden. The irony is that this is a coach who was forced to retire at least partially due to some of his own scandals (though at FSU the bigger sin was simply not winning enough at the end). To some extent this implies something positive about FSU, that they actually had the institutional wherewithall to make the Head FB Coach retire, unlike PSU.

Here is a video of Coach K commenting on the scandal and on Joe Pa's legacy. As he says, "This is really sad." But I just love the fact that K "gets it," and talks about the importance of his (and every person of influence/power) having a boss(es) to whom he is accountable.

http://www.usatoday.com/video/1736639190001?csp=taboola

It'll be interesting to see how all of this, especially the schollarship limits and $60M penalty, affects PSU's success on the field for the next decade. I personally think that it'll be crippling and wonder if all of those irate fans will still be around in five years when they're repeatedly having 4&5-win seasons.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/early-lead/post/penn-state-punishment-by-ncaa-expected-to-be-unprecedented/2012/07/23/gJQAuhe73W_blog.html?wpisrc=al_national

[Chicago 1995]

Can't find it to quote from it, but someone alluded to the fact that no sanctions were imposed on the UVa men's lacrosse program in the Huguely matter.

The two cases are easily distinguishable. There is no evidence that UVa did anything to impede the investigation of Yeardley Love's death or the subsequent prosecution of Huguely.

It's fair to point moral fingers at Dom Starsia, who seems to have been the only person in the entire college lax world who didn't know that George Huguely had an alcohol problem and was a violent drunk. But in terms of compliance or non-compliance with NCAA rules, the cases are not comparable.

I think the distinction is a little different, and might mean UVA isn't out of the woods.

UVa and Starsia are fighting the wrongful death suit brought by the Loves. There's no Freeh report here, let alone an admission of wrong doing as you see in the consent decree entered into by PSU and the NCAA. There's no basis for Emmert to exercise this power against UVA.

Yet.

This might need to be revisited if the allegations that Starsia knew of Huguely's issues and other incidents of violence against women are proven true, and that Starsia did nothing, then MAYBE, this is something the NCAA would be interested in under this new power.

[Kfanarmy]

I have no problem with the punishment, but I have to wonder if the NCAA is finally going to take their policing function seriously or if they are just piling on.

With the recent problems at UVa and Penn State, it seems that American universities are headed for some interesting times, to say the least.

I don't think the NCAA has a role to play here. These are criminal acts that are being punished criminally and will become civil liability actions. To what end does the NCAA punish the program that isn't already being addressed in criminal/civil courts? Did these acts have anything to do with fair play, with recruiting, or any of the other machinations of college athletics. I don't think they do. So the NCAA is simply here exacting a pound of flesh to distance themselves from the stench and perhaps to establish authority where none should exist. I don't get the point of vacating wins, the games were won on the field without undue advantage...I don't get the point of the NCAA fining the school unless they are going to put it in a general fund to be used to pay the civil judgements.

[Des Esseintes]

Does anybody else find it ironic that, with Joe Pa losing his status as the wiiningest coach in NCAA D1 history due to the forfeit of 13 years of wins, the new "winningest coach" becomes the ACC's own Bobby Bowden. The irony is that this is a coach who was forced to retire at least partially due to some of his own scandals (though at FSU the bigger sin was simply not winning enough at the end). To some extent this implies something positive about FSU, that they actually had the institutional wherewithall to make the Head FB Coach retire, unlike PSU.


I've thought the same thing a few times. Bowden and Paterno were having comparable success on the field near the end, with Paterno seeming to have higher highs and lower lows on-field than the more reliably okayyyyish Bowden. But FSU forced out its legend, and PSU could not. You could argue that the Seminoles' win-at-all-costs mentality actually helped it move on, whereas Penn State's reverence for past services rendered paralyzed it. I don't think we should be applauding Florida State for its ruthlessness born of an inferiority complex with UF--if Paterno hadn't turned out to be an enabler of child-rape, we would view the issue differently--but the pas de deux performed by these two programs over the past decade as their leaders jockied for the wins record has had an unexpected final chapter to say the least.

[Chicago 1995]

I don't think the NCAA has a role to play here. These are criminal acts that are being punished criminally and will become civil liability actions. To what end does the NCAA punish the program that isn't already being addressed in criminal/civil courts? Did these acts have anything to do with fair play, with recruiting, or any of the other machinations of college athletics. I don't think they do. So the NCAA is simply here exacting a pound of flesh to distance themselves from the stench and perhaps to establish authority where none should exist. I don't get the point of vacating wins, the games were won on the field without undue advantage...I don't get the point of the NCAA fining the school unless they are going to put it in a general fund to be used to pay the civil judgements.

If this didn't effect the ability of the football program to be competative, why did they cover it up?

What does this punish that isn't being addressed in criminal or civil courts? It puts FB back in a proper place at PSU. The desire and ability to cover up for Sandusky only existed because of the power of football there. No civil judgment could force PSU to deemphasize football in the way this will.

Whether the NCAA did this out of a sense of moral outrage, out of a true belief its principles were compromised or simply to try to salvage its waning credibility is a fair question, but it doesn't change that the action today -- taken with the consent of PSU -- was necessary in the eyes of many to hit a core problem at PSU -- the power of the FB program and the culture that power had created.

Obviously, PSU isn't the only school with a coach and sports program with too much power. Hopefully, this causes at least some of those programs to reexamine priorities and make sure that something like this couldn't happen at their school.

[Kfanarmy]

I'd also note that Penn State commissioned the Freeh Report, making this a unique case where an investigation done by the University and made public was more thorough and complete than anything the NCAA could have done. I don't think there is a great risk of the NCAA stepping outside its normal processes on a regular basis because of the unique nature of this case. I do expect the NCAA by-laws will be amended to make clear the NCAA has this power in the future, but I think it's going to take a pretty unique case to have them exercise it.

To be up front, I'm not a fan of Mr Freeh. On top of that I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to a University paying someone to do a complete investigation. Pessimistic by nature, I find it impossible to believe that most, if not all, of the board hasn't known everything for the life of this "coverup" -- current and past members. I wonder how much latitude was given in implicating trustees...and if it came right down to it, where Mr Freeh's report would lean if further implicating a dead ex-football coach meant lessening the impact on past/present board members.

No, I don't believe anyone outside the university should rely even primarily on the university's report.

and on the last note, I'd say power once given is awfully difficult to recover.

[Chicago 1995]

To be up front, I'm not a fan of Mr Freeh. On top of that I'm a bit of a pessimist when it comes to a University paying someone to do a complete investigation. Pessimistic by nature, I find it impossible to believe that most, if not all, of the board hasn't known everything for the life of this "coverup" -- current and past members. I wonder how much latitude was given in implicating trustees...and if it came right down to it, where Mr Freeh's report would lean if further implicating a dead ex-football coach meant lessening the impact on past/present board members.
No, I don't believe anyone outside the university should rely even primarily on the university's report.

and on the last note, I'd say power once given is awfully difficult to recover.

I don't know that I accept your skepticism about Freeh, but if I were to do so, and PSU had even more knowledge of the cover up than Freeh reported, then what happened to PSU FB today isn't enough, and they should shutter the FB program there for a generation at a minimum. If the BOT knew and did nothing and commissioned a sham report, the culture of FB at PSU is so cancerous, it would need to be excised completely. For good.

I agree that there's no turning back about the power the NCAA now has. It's there, and I suspect that its existence is going to be ratified by an amendment to the bylaws. I don't know that them having the power is such a bad thing, and I think the instances in which it is going to be used are so limited and rare, that I'm not sweating it.

[Duvall]

Jay Bilas used this comparison this morning on Mike and Mike on ESPN Radio. He argued that the NCAA shouldn't impose any penalties on Penn State because it's a criminal matter and those that have culpability are already being severely punished. And for those arguing that the NCAA needs to impose sanctions as a deterrent, Jay argued that the criminal ramifications are enough of a deterrent and any NCAA sanction would pale in comparison. Not only did Jay mention UVa when making this argument, but of course he had to mention his alma mater and the Duke lacrosse case...where he said there "were serious mishandlings" and the NCAA didn't impose anything.

Of course he did. Bilas would cut down every tree in England to take one more limp shot at the NCAA, even if it meant dragging Duke into it.

[Mal]

Obviously, PSU isn't the only school with a coach and sports program with too much power. Hopefully, this causes at least some of those programs to reexamine priorities and make sure that something like this couldn't happen at their school.

This is, I think, what many hope is a real, lasting impact of this. I thought it important that Ray and Emmert noted a couple of times the underlying structural dynamic that many have been bemoaning for years but no one within the NCAA structure could speak: athletics have become the tail wagging the academic institution dog. I can't say I think the real world impact will be a large scale true change in that sy$tem, and that most large schools won't continue to have their public persona defined almost exclusively by their success or lack thereof in intercollegiate athletics, but at least the governing body has articulated what everyone else knows is the problem. But there should be some changes on the margins, and in a generation I would expect that Boards of Trustees, having applied the leverage supplied them by this action, will have implemented a system of checks and balances on their athletic programs that will hopefully lessen the likelihood that anything this egregious can happen again. That should help ensure that other, less egregious things also don't happen with the same regularity.

I would not be surprised if the NCAA's decision to do something here, rather than relying on the legalistic arguments that this is a purely criminal matter and the recruiting/academic/athletics nexus wasn't directly at issue to justify doing nothing, was driven in part by an internal understanding that this was a chance to push the pendulum back the other way in the "purpose of institutions of higher learning" power struggle. Penn State was the perfect cover and scapegoat, in that very few would find reason to object to the NCAA's stepping in. Opportunistic, perhaps, but I can't say I'm upset by the outcome if that was, in fact, part of the consideration.

[burnspbesq]

I personally think that it'll be crippling

A similar bowl ban and scholarship restrictions have barely resulted in a hiccup at USC.

[gus]

Does anybody else find it ironic that, with Joe Pa losing his status as the wiiningest coach in NCAA D1 history due to the forfeit of 13 years of wins, the new "winningest coach" becomes the ACC's own Bobby Bowden.

Or, how about that the quarerback with the last official win at PSU is... Mike McQueery?

[Atlanta Duke]

Not only did Jay mention UVa when making this argument, but of course he had to mention his alma mater and the Duke lacrosse case...where he said there "were serious mishandlings" and the NCAA didn't impose anything. I do not find the Duke lacrosse case parallel to this case at all, so didn't find that comparison particularly compelling.

Maybe Jay was thinking of an op-ed by Stuart Taylor and KC Johnson in The Wall Street Journal last week?


Johnson and Taylor: Penn State, Duke and Integrity
Two universities, two scandals, two leadership crises. That's where the comparison ends.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303933704577532891512167490.html (this is behind a pay wall)

That op-ed found parallels betwen "mishandlings" at Penn State and Duke but concluded that Penn State administrators involved in the "mishandling" were disciplined but Duke administrators other then the lax coach involved in any "mishandling" were not disciplined. Not saying I agree with the authors' conclusions - just noting that Jay is not the first one to reach for a comparison.

Of course the actions at Penn State temporarily protected the football program whereas the actions taken at Duke adversely impacted the lax team.

Was Jay suggesting that if Penn State got sanctioned then Duke should have been sanctioned as well? The NCAA actually did stick its beak into the Duke lax mess by granting Duke's request to restore a year of eligibility for non-seniors on the 2006 team.


In May [2007], the NCAA granted Duke's request for the extra year for its players who were not seniors during the 2006 season, regardless of whether they played at Duke or another school. The decision restored the year lost when Duke canceled the remainder of the '06 season amid the allegations, and 12 seniors were eligible to return next season.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/lacrosse/2007-08-29-duke-eligibility_N.htm

So in that sense the NCAA did impose something - the anti-sanction of another year of eligibility - even though it was the decision of Duke and not the NCAA to shutter the program in 2006.

Mods - not trying to flog the lax issue here - just addressing the Jay Bilas comments.

[mph]

I agree with those who argued that the NCAA was right to strip the university, particularly Paterno, of wins from 1998-2011. It's a logical consequence given Paterno's probable motivation for the cover-up and while it doesn't mean much to the school, it's a meaningful repudiation of whatever positive is left of Paterno's legacy. Otherwise, I largely agree with the "blah, blah, blah, NCAA" poster above.

I have two problems with the NCAA penalties. At today's press conference Emmert made the argument that they decided against the death penalty because they wanted to reform PSU culture. I don't see how the $60 million dollar fine is consistent with this goal. A large part of the problem with the campus culture at PSU and similar schools is that the tail wags the dog. Rather than a university's academic mission dictating the size, scope, and behavior of their athletic departments, we often see athletic departments taking precedent over a university's academic health and integrity. In this case, the NCAA told PSU that they could not take scholarships or funding away from non-football sports programs. If the NCAA is intent on levying a fine and serious about changing the culture, the athletic department is precisely where that money should have come from. Heck, tell PSU that the $12 million has to come from the football operations budget, but don't put a university in a position where they have to cover a sports-related financial penalty with money from outside of the athletic department budget. That's reinforcing the problem you're ostensibly trying to solve.

Which brings me to point #2. I'll concede that my cynicism regarding nearly everything the NCAA says and does might be blurring my vision on this one, but it seemed to me that this was as much about the NCAA expressing moral outrage as it was about punishing or correcting PSU's behavior. In a nutshell, the NCAA wanted the public to know that they are really, really, really, really appalled and now that they've demonstrated their level of outrage everyone can return to business as usual rather than asking how the NCAA itself contributed the the culture at PSU. Just in time for the start of the college football season.

[Bluedog]

Was Jay suggesting that if Penn State got sanctioned then Duke should have been sanctioned as well?

He didn't really elaborate. Simply stated the NCAA doesn't get involved in all cases and gave UVa and Duke as examples - but I agree with you, the NCAA did ultimately get involved by granting an extra year of eligibility. And, yeah, they're kind of opposite cases - one where the university impeded police investigation by not reporting a scandal and covering it up for the benefit of the football program. The other where the university gave the police whatever it wanted (and the LAX team members now arguing without warrants) and disclosed everything it knew even if it harmed its LAX program in the midst of an investigation of a terrible alleged act, which ultimately was based on flimsy non-evidence.

Incidentally, the Big Ten has added to the sanctions barring them from the Big Ten conference title game for four years (not that they will be likely to make it now anyways) and taking its share from the conference bowl revenues, or about a $13 million hit. (The money will go to children's charities.)

[CameronBornAndBred]

A similar bowl ban and scholarship restrictions have barely resulted in a hiccup at USC.

That was only 10 scholarships per year and only one bowl ban. You can recruit players into a program with that stigma because most of them know they are going to redshirt anyway. You can't recruit players into a program knowing they will NEVER play in a bowl.

[jafarr1]

Also, the limited bowl ban limits the players that can transfer without penalty.

From ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998):
"Under NCAA rules covering postseason bans, players are allowed to transfer without sitting out a season as long as their remaining eligibility is shorter than or equal to the length of the ban."

So, at USC the two-year ban meant only the seniors and juniors could transfer without sitting a year. At PSU, every player can transfer without penalty. Big difference.

[hq2]

I think this distinction is right on. As is so often the case, the cover up is the worst crime. As horrible as it was for Sandusky to have done what he did in '98 (and, unfortunately, many times before then), that the people in charge allowed it to happen again and actively worked to make sure the crimes went unpunished is truly terrible.

Yeah, I think that gets it right. Since '98 was the first time they knew about it, it apparently was investigated by the local authorities and charges
weren't filed. So they could claim at that time that they did do something closer to what was right, even though Sandusky should have been immediately
barred from using the University facilities for kids. But for it to happen again in 2001, for them knowing that this was part of a pattern of repeated abuse, and to cover it up, knowing that it was likely now that Sandusky would keep on doing it unless he was stopped, was simply criminal. There's no other
way to put it. What's incredible about it all is that they also didn't have enough sense to know that sooner or later Sandusky's victims would try and
report it, and it would all come out anyway, and they would look even worse then for covering it up. Truly incredible. Now that it's been shown to have
been done repeatedly, I don't think the courts are going to be very sympathetic to them.

[Acymetric]

Also, the limited bowl ban limits the players that can transfer without penalty.

From ESPN (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-nittany-lions-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998):
"Under NCAA rules covering postseason bans, players are allowed to transfer without sitting out a season as long as their remaining eligibility is shorter than or equal to the length of the ban."

So, at USC the two-year ban meant only the seniors and juniors could transfer without sitting a year. At PSU, every player can transfer without penalty. Big difference.

Heard this question on the radio and never heard them answer it. Does a player have to transfer before the coming season to not have to sit out a year? Or could they wait until after this coming season when teams will actually have the scholarship space for them?

[SoCalDukeFan]

A similar bowl ban and scholarship restrictions have barely resulted in a hiccup at USC.

This is the first year of the reductions at USC. USC will probably be fine this year, but will probably suffer in 13 and 14

USC scholarship reductions are less than these also.

Bowl ban can be funny. If you have a great team it hurts, only a good team not so bad, bad team no penalty.

SoCal

[A-Tex Devil]

I am kinda with Bilas and struggling with the NCAA doing anything here. I can reluctantly get behind the vacating of wins (everything should have been exposed in 1998) and the $60MM fine (penance for the victims), I guess, under the guise of loss of institutional control. I have a harder time with the scholly limits and bowl ban going forward if the NCAA has any intention of PSU rehabilitating itself and being competitive in the future. This isn't rogue alumni that may come back and pay players again, it's a rogue administration and athletic department that has been purged. Something this awful is probably less likely to happen at PSU now than most campuses across the country.

I get that the NCAA wants to change the culture at PSU, but just about everyone at fault has lost their job, faces jail time, or unfortunately, has died. The program and administration has pretty much already gotten an enema, ending with the removal of the JoePa statue. I guess it's deterring other schools from covering things up in the future. But if everything that has happened between November and now isn't deterrent enough for schools that might want to cover up something heinous, today's NCAA sanctions aren't going to change anything. I just feel really uncomfortable in my gut with the NCAA's role here for some reason that I can't quite articulate other than that all the damage being done by NCAA here, all of it, is collateral. Not to mention the NCAA has done exactly zero investigative work and is relying solely on the Freeh report just because it was commissioned by the school. But I am starting to sound like a Penn State apologist, and I'm not. The people involved in the cover up down to McQueary deserve whatever they are going to get. I just don't know that the NCAA's sanctions today directly or indirectly effect anyone involved in that cover up one little bit, other than that the team they cheer for may suck for a long while.

[crimsonandblue]

I am kinda with Bilas and struggling with the NCAA doing anything here. I can reluctantly get behind the vacating of wins (everything should have been exposed in 1998) and the $60MM fine (penance for the victims), I guess, under the guise of loss of institutional control. I have a harder time with the scholly limits and bowl ban going forward if the NCAA has any intention of PSU rehabilitating itself and being competitive in the future. This isn't rogue alumni that may come back and pay players again, it's a rogue administration and athletic department that has been purged. Something this awful is probably less likely to happen at PSU now than most campuses across the country.

I get that the NCAA wants to change the culture at PSU, but just about everyone at fault has lost their job, faces jail time, or unfortunately, has died. The program and administration has pretty much already gotten an enema, ending with the removal of the JoePa statue. I guess it's deterring other schools from covering things up in the future. But if everything that has happened between November and now isn't deterrent enough for schools that might want to cover up something heinous, today's NCAA sanctions aren't going to change anything. I just feel really uncomfortable in my gut with the NCAA's role here for some reason that I can't quite articulate other than that all the damage being done by NCAA here, all of it, is collateral. Not to mention the NCAA has done exactly zero investigative work and is relying solely on the Freeh report just because it was commissioned by the school. But I am starting to sound like a Penn State apologist, and I'm not. The people involved in the cover up down to McQueary deserve whatever they are going to get. I just don't know that the NCAA's sanctions today directly or indirectly effect anyone involved in that cover up one little bit, other than that the team they cheer for may suck for a long while.

Have you seen the PSU collective reaction? Granted it's hard to fully and fairly gauge from afar, but the Paternos promptly issue a statement that seems 90% concerned about vacating Joe's wins. The school president doesn't have the sense to shut up and states that their backs were against the wall and they had to agree with the NCAA to save the program. Their horrid message boards are up in arms over punishing the innocent. This is a group that clearly still doesn't get that the NCAA's central tenet in this action is that the PSU administration, backed by the PSU culture, put the football program and its image ahead of everything and particularly ahead of the innocence of children. And there's been nothing to show that these people get that. In fact, their reactions seem to cement that.

It's football. A game. And the PSU team still gets to play it, albeit at what will likely be a much lower level of performance. Oh. The. Horror.

[SoCalDukeFan]

I continue to think that the NCAA should try to a better job in areas where there is other authority. Let law enforcement and the civil courts handle this.

The football culture at Penn State was too big. The AD wanted Paterno to retire a few years ago, Paterno said no, and stayed on. Even at Florida State they were able to get Bowden to retire. The AD and the VP knew that they had a child molester in their midst and they let Paterno talk them out of doing anything to stop him!!! The Penn State football fans can now rally around the players who stay and the recruits that come. In a couple of years recruits who be told that they should get to play sooner because their will be less competition.

SoCal

[Duvall]

Heard this question on the radio and never heard them answer it. Does a player have to transfer before the coming season to not have to sit out a year? Or could they wait until after this coming season when teams will actually have the scholarship space for them?

They will be able to transfer at any time.

[A-Tex Devil]

Have you seen the PSU collective reaction? Granted it's hard to fully and fairly gauge from afar, but the Paternos promptly issue a statement that seems 90% concerned about vacating Joe's wins. The school president doesn't have the sense to shut up and states that their backs were against the wall and they had to agree with the NCAA to save the program. Their horrid message boards are up in arms over punishing the innocent. This is a group that clearly still doesn't get that the NCAA's central tenet in this action is that the PSU administration, backed by the PSU culture, put the football program and its image ahead of everything and particularly ahead of the innocence of children. And there's been nothing to show that these people get that. In fact, their reactions seem to cement that.

It's football. A game. And the PSU team still gets to play it, albeit at what will likely be a much lower level of performance. Oh. The. Horror.

If the President or the other Paternos are complicit in the cover up, they should be disassociated and potentially indicted. If the fanbase and message boards were complicit, string 'em up. But I learned a long time ago not to judge a school by its message boards. This one is great, but there are Duke message boards out there that would embarrass all of us.

Something about the NCAA's actions sits wrong with me. I'm probably fine with PSU getting nailed in the end, but it's the opportunistic and self-serving nature of the NCAA's timing and punishment that just seems off. It's less that the people responsible don't deserve punishment than what seems like a embattled organization looking to regain some semblance of increased legitimacy by adding their $0.02 (or $60MM) to a situation that doesn't really need it.

It's a down the middle of the plate 75 mile hour fastball with the wind blowing out. And maybe that's fine. But when I look at what's happened at UNC, or even Auburn/Miss St. with respect to Cam Newton's dad, the approaches, both in speed and process seem.... disjointed, maybe? Not trying to compare what happened. I'm just not sure something this --criminal-- really should be the NCAA's bailiwick. The people at fault are being punished. The NCAA is just punishing the bystanders.

Like I said -- my gut has me feeling that the NCAA getting involved to this level in this particular situation just seem incongruent, at best, and opportunistic, at worst.

[crimsonandblue]

I understand the trepidation over allowing the NCAA to get involved in things criminal. But to me, that concern seems akin to telling your kids not to play with matches and then not punishing them when they burn down your house with an acetylene torch. I mean, the rules only said no matches.

If we want the NCAA to be a purely ministerial body imposing parking and speeding tickets on misconduct, I guess that's fine. But when we allow them to make value judgments for "lack of institutional control," and dole out punishments based on some grayscale, continuum of perceived "badness" I don't see how Penn State's actions can go unchecked by NCAA action.

[blazindw]

One thing they should have done to Spanier, Curley and Schultz is given them a multi-year showcause penalty, which would effectively ban them from higher education for the term of the penalty (other schools hiring them would have to show why they shouldn't incur penalties for hiring them over someone else). Right now, they are free to take jobs while they are assumingly free (indictments are certainly possible), and I think going after them for, say, a 15-year show cause penalty would have effectively ended their higher ed careers if this scandal already hasn't.

[Duvall]

One thing they should have done to Spanier, Curley and Schultz is given them a multi-year showcause penalty, which would effectively ban them from higher education for the term of the penalty (other schools hiring them would have to show why they shouldn't incur penalties for hiring them over someone else). Right now, they are free to take jobs while they are assumingly free (indictments are certainly possible), and I think going after them for, say, a 15-year show cause penalty would have effectively ended their higher ed careers if this scandal already hasn't.

The NCAA stated during the press conference that they will be conducting further reviews to determine whether sanctions against individuals will be issued.

[duke86]

I am analytical in nature and usually do not allow my emotions, compassion, or moral obligation to interfere with how I look at an issue. I believe in legal precedent, facts, and jurisdiction, so I was very interested to read this blog. I copied it below. Just food for thought.

According to ESPN and other media organizations, NCAA president Mark Emmert has elected to issue sanctions on Monday (July 23, 2012) against Pennsylvania State University, including a loss of scholarships and a multiple-year bowl ban. If the media reports are true, then the NCAA has charted an unprecedented, and perhaps unconstitutional, course of action.

[redacted for copyright]

The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm will issue a comprehensive statement on its blog (http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/) after the NCAA announces the Penn State penalties.

[Turk]

ATex, you are way more diplomatic and gentlemanly than I am. OK, for whatever motive, be it pure, pandering, or punitive, the NCAA did something. That ship has sailed.

As for the rest, of course the Paternos will vigorously defend their name. What else would anyone expect them to do?

PSU football will take their beatings and survive the sanctions because of its considerable resources and prestige (as an educational institution, at least). It will take years, but the fan/alumni loyalty will still be there. What else would anyone expect them to do, either?

I suspect the civil and criminal proceedings will still be grinding along four years from now when PSU is back to full strength with schollys and bowl eligibility. The legal penalties will cost them many multiples of whatever dollar amount the NCAA actions add up to.

All the other big-time programs have quietly checked to make sure they have no pedophiles on staff.

For years, the debate has raged whether Paterno stayed on too long, whether he was just a figurehead, and the response from "Happy Valley" was that he was healthy, engaged, and running the program. Too bad it was actually true and not just PR blather.

I think I've reached my saturation point.

[A-Tex Devil]

One thing they should have done to Spanier, Curley and Schultz is given them a multi-year showcause penalty, which would effectively ban them from higher education for the term of the penalty (other schools hiring them would have to show why they shouldn't incur penalties for hiring them over someone else). Right now, they are free to take jobs while they are assumingly free (indictments are certainly possible), and I think going after them for, say, a 15-year show cause penalty would have effectively ended their higher ed careers if this scandal already hasn't.

This.

And to respond to Crimson and Blue, I guess I don't see what the NCAA is doing as a deterrent that is any more effective than what has already happened since November. Try to cover things up and you can face perjury charges, lose your job, and have your career and legacy destroyed. We didn't need the NCAA's help to do any of that. But I guess they needed to do their thing. It just sits wrong.

I have come around to thinking the $60MM fine was justified and could have been more - not as a deterrent, but to ensure help for the victims. Any agency with the authority to extract money from the university should do it for the benefit of the victims and related programs. That's where the NCAA should have wielded the hammer even perhaps a bit stronger.

[Mal]

A similar bowl ban and scholarship restrictions have barely resulted in a hiccup at USC.

Not terribly analogous situations, though. USC was coming off of 7 consecutive Top 4 final poll finishes in 2009, with two national championships in there. I don't think recruits were scared off by the Reggie Bush simmerings and potential harm, especially given that it was just a 2 year bowl ban and they weren't likely to be playing much those 2 years, anyway. It's still one of the places to be if you want to be featured in a pro-style, groom me for the NFL system and play for a coach with sizzle (loathsome though he may seem to fans elsewhere). Not to mention the SoCal location. If Penn State has anyone like Matt Barkeley, I'd put good money on him not hanging around for another couple years to play for Bill O'Brien in State College. Penn State is about to have zero ability to pull 4- and 5-star recruits for the next couple years. None. And whatever group of signees they might have for next season will scatter to the wind.

They may do alright this year, assuming some of the juniors and seniors will determine it's too late to transfer. But in two years, with the cupboards bare and another two seasons in the wilderness coming up, they're going to get trounced by Ohio State by 35 points, and have trouble with the likes of Illinois, Indiana and Minnesota. After which they'll be semi-permanently relegated to mid-tier or worse status in the Big Ten, and it's a lot harder to recover in a conference with OSU, a resurgent Michigan and Nebraska, steady Iowa and Wisconsin and oncoming Michigan State, than it is in the Pac-12. They'll eventually need a pied piper type to sell a phoenix vision and get lucky enough to have it work, but it's an uphill battle. I would not be surprised if Penn State's not nationally relevant for the next 10-12 years at a minimum.

[Duvall]

It's a down the middle of the plate 75 mile hour fastball with the wind blowing out. And maybe that's fine. But when I look at what's happened at UNC, or even Auburn/Miss St. with respect to Cam Newton's dad, the approaches, both in speed and process seem.... disjointed, maybe? Not trying to compare what happened. I'm just not sure something this --criminal-- really should be the NCAA's bailiwick. The people at fault are being punished. The NCAA is just punishing the bystanders.

The NCAA is punishing the institution, which in many cases is the only thing they can do.

The key difference between this matter and most other NCAA matters is the existence of the review by the Special Investigative Counsel. The NCAA could not work quickly in the UNC matter because it had to conduct an investigation - here, Penn State commissioned its own investigation and endorsed the findings. The NCAA was thus able to act based on those facts.

[Des Esseintes]

I understand the trepidation over allowing the NCAA to get involved in things criminal. But to me, that concern seems akin to telling your kids not to play with matches and then not punishing them when they burn down your house with an acetylene torch. I mean, the rules only said no matches.

If we want the NCAA to be a purely ministerial body imposing parking and speeding tickets on misconduct, I guess that's fine. But when we allow them to make value judgments for "lack of institutional control," and dole out punishments based on some grayscale, continuum of perceived "badness" I don't see how Penn State's actions can go unchecked by NCAA action.



And to respond to Crimson and Blue, I guess I don't see what the NCAA is doing as a deterrent that is any more effective than what has already happened since November. Try to cover things up and you can face perjury charges, lose your job, and have your career and legacy destroyed. We didn't need the NCAA's help to do any of that. But I guess they needed to do their thing. It just sits wrong.

I have come around to thinking the $60MM fine was justified and could have been more - not as a deterrent, but to ensure help for the victims. Any agency with the authority to extract money from the university should do it for the benefit of the victims and related programs. That's where the NCAA should have wielded the hammer even perhaps a bit stronger.

It's worth remembering that the NCAA doesn't have a great play anywhere here. Had they not gotten involved at all, leaving punishment to the various court systems, many people would have been deeply unhappy at the spectacle of Saturdays in Happy Valley proceeding as if nothing had happened. Or if the NCAA chose to issue a punishment but didn't come down with the force of a thousand violins, the conversation would be all about how the premier programs, even under the worst circumstances, still get star treatment. We got instead Option #3, in which the NCAA grandstands and makes an example of PSU. Is it a little obscene? Is it kicking the target when he's down? Absolutely. But I just don't see a non-obscene possibility--thanks, Joe!--and this solution strikes me as by far the most palatable. Everyone's mileage may vary, of course.

[crimsonandblue]

I am analytical in nature and usually do not allow my emotions, compassion, or moral obligation to interfere with how I look at an issue. I believe in legal precedent, facts, and jurisdiction, so I was very interested to read this blog. I copied it below. Just food for thought.

The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm will issue a comprehensive statement on its blog (http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/) after the NCAA announces the Penn State penalties.

Someone should run tell Penn State not to sign that Consent Decree . . . oh.


This.

And to respond to Crimson and Blue, I guess I don't see what the NCAA is doing as a deterrent that is any more effective than what has already happened since November. Try to cover things up and you can face perjury charges, lose your job, and have your career and legacy destroyed. We didn't need the NCAA's help to do any of that. But I guess they needed to do their thing. It just sits wrong.

I have come around to thinking the $60MM fine was justified and could have been more - not as a deterrent, but to ensure help for the victims. Any agency with the authority to extract money from the university should do it for the benefit of the victims and related programs. That's where the NCAA should have wielded the hammer even perhaps a bit stronger.

I don't think many of the penalties were aimed at deterrence. I think they were an attempt to deal with the ridiculous culture of Penn State and cult of personality surrounding JoePa. I think crippling the football program is about the only way to make certain that the Penn State football community gets the message.

[Dukefan1.0]

NCAA did more than I thought they would, since I still believe that they overstepped their boundaries into an element that I believe that they need to stay out. I do agree with A-Tex that those who did commit the crimes have been purged, and this unnecessarily punishes those who had no hand in the cover up. I do disagree with what Emmert said that this will change the culture. The culture will only change when ESPN and Fox believe that two billion dollars is to much to spend on rights to broadcast football.

Does the NCAA giving the Penn State players the right to transfer without loss of eligibility allow other schools to recruit the players or do the players have to contact the school that they want to transfer?

[burnspbesq]

I am analytical in nature and usually do not allow my emotions, compassion, or moral obligation to interfere with how I look at an issue. I believe in legal precedent, facts, and jurisdiction, so I was very interested to read this blog. I copied it below. Just food for thought.

The Michael L. Buckner Law Firm will issue a comprehensive statement on its blog (http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/) after the NCAA announces the Penn State penalties.

A question, and an observation.

Q: Who does Buckner represent?

Observation: That would all be interesting if it hadn't been rendered academic by the fact that Penn State signed a consent decree.

[A-Tex Devil]

Shifting the discussion a bit to the effect of the penalties on Penn St. football, I thought this (http://www.barkingcarnival.com/2012/7/23/3177916/penn-state-footballs-sanctions-death-would-have-been-a-kindness) was a really good analysis of what the sanctions may do to the football program. Yeah, this is the least of the concerns, but this is also a sports blog, so I thought worthy of discussion.

Considering the effect of these penalties and the lifting of the transfer restrictions, it seems highly possible Penn St. may not be able to field a team next year, or maybe the year after, creating an effective death penalty.

[crimsonandblue]

NCAA did more than I thought they would, since I still believe that they overstepped their boundaries into an element that I believe that they need to stay out. I do agree with A-Tex that those who did commit the crimes have been purged, and this unnecessarily punishes those who had no hand in the cover up. I do disagree with what Emmert said that this will change the culture. The culture will only change when ESPN and Fox believe that two billion dollars is to much to spend on rights to broadcast football.

Does the NCAA giving the Penn State players the right to transfer without loss of eligibility allow other schools to recruit the players or do the players have to contact the school that they want to transfer?

I think I saw that the no-contact restrictions are also relaxed. You just notify the AD in advance and can then contact players directly. Basically, you need a hunting license from the AD, but can then hunt with impunity.

[A-Tex Devil]

I think I saw that the no-contact restrictions are also relaxed. You just notify the AD in advance and can then contact players directly. Basically, you need a hunting license from the AD, but can then hunt with impunity.

This is right. I think they can probably say goodbye to a significant number of their RS freshman and sophomores (guys that still have NCAA and NFL (however overblown) aspirations), and potentially many . Check back at the end of the month. If there is an exodus like there was at SMU (or, proportionately, at Baylor basketball post-Bliss), PSU can't really field a team of walk-ons against a Big Ten schedule with a month of preparation.

If they can rally the players to stay like Pitino did at Kentucky, though, perhaps they can salvage something this year.

[Mal]

I think I saw that the no-contact restrictions are also relaxed. You just notify the AD in advance and can then contact players directly. Basically, you need a hunting license from the AD, but can then hunt with impunity.

That's what I saw, as well. It's open season and the players are free agents. And that open season will continue, as I also read that there's no requirement a player take them up on this opportunity now - they can wait until next season. Also, the transferee program doesn't have to dump another scholarship player a week before practice begins to make room for them; they can just give out one fewer scholarship next season. I'd be not at all surprised if most of the top guys on that roster aren't gone by the end of the week. All it will take is one star leaving and it will likely be a crush for the door.

Likely conversation from about 10:30 this morning:

Starting Penn State tight end: "Hello?"
Voice on other end of phone: "Hi, this is Les Myles, and I..."
"Hang on, Coach, Urban Meyer's on my other line. Can I call you back?"
"Sure, or just meet me at [name of local diner] anytime tomorrow - I'm getting on a flight to Pittsburgh right now."
"OK, but you might want to try [name of local coffeehouse]. I hear Bob Stoops is going to be at [local diner]."

It will be interesting to see how tightly knit the current roster is, and whether all this breaks any team unity/defiance in the face of extreme adversity.

[Mal]

This is right. I think they can probably say goodbye to a significant number of their RS freshman and sophomores (guys that still have NCAA and NFL (however overblown) aspirations), and potentially many . Check back at the end of the month. If there is an exodus like there was at SMU (or, proportionately, at Baylor basketball post-Bliss), PSU can't really field a team of walk-ons against a Big Ten schedule with a month of preparation.

If they can rally the players to stay like Pitino did at Kentucky, though, perhaps they can salvage something this year.

I think the losses will be to the top-end guys and those redshirts with aspirations you note. I wouldn't be shocked, however, if the scholarship guys who knew coming in they'd have a tough time ever starting, but were nonetheless sold on being part of a top program (instead of a better chance to start at Western Michigan or somewhere) mostly stick around. USC and Nebraska aren't going to be knocking on their doors, so staying and moving up on the depth chart through attrition might actually be the best option for them. The massive size of the rosters in college football, I would think, would mean there's less of a chance you're left without an ability to even field a team. On the other hand, the nature of the game would make it harder to have an Unforgettables situation arise. I don't know, though. I'm uneducatedly guessing that they field a team that looks halfway respectable this season (essentially equivalent to their second string in a normal season), and can beat their nonconference cupcakes, but will have no chance of seriously competing in the Big Ten.

[Chris Randolph]

I wonder if the Dean of Students had done what Joe Paterno did if they would have taken away the degrees earned by students who graduated from Penn State

[Des Esseintes]

I wonder if the Dean of Students had done what Joe Paterno did if they would have taken away the degrees earned by students who graduated from Penn State

Probably not, given that the university president did what Joe Paterno did, and nobody took away the degrees earned by the football players who graduated from Penn State.

And yes, equating some football statistics to a college degree illustrates perfectly the disconnect some people have from reality when it comes to sports.

[mgtr]

And all this activity is punishing the people involved how? OK, Sandusky is in jail -- good. Paterno's reputation is severely tarnished -- good. But others who knew and did nothing? Unknown, at least to me. And all the other people on the football staff at the time? The athletic department staff? The President's office? I guess they get off scot free.

[Atlanta Duke]

Stewart Mandel at SI slams the NCAA

Justice has been served, assuming your idea of justice for rape victims is to deprive a school of its next four Outback Bowl invitations....

And have you read about the ongoing academic fraud scandal at North Carolina? Since at least 1999, athletes have repeatedly been steered toward a specific professor's African and Afro-American Studies course that no one actually taught or attended. Last year's NCAA investigation only scratched the surface. Considering how highly the NCAA portends to value academics, shouldn't Emmert step in here, too?....

Here's betting a $3 billion television contract and a $600 million-a-year playoff that he won't deter a darn thing.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/stewart_mandel/07/23/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions/index.html?sct=hp_t2_a3&eref=sihp

[Duvall]

Stewart Mandel at SI slams the NCAA

I guess the enablers of Big Football don't like being threatened, even a little.

[Atlanta Duke]

I guess the enablers of Big Football don't like being threatened, even a little.

IMO Mandel thinks the whole system is corrupt and that the outrage of the NCAA in this case is hypocritical given its commitment to process over action in reviewing other misconduct that has not made it to the nightly news.

[OldPhiKap]

Calling the NCAA "hypocritical" is like calling the ocean "wet"

[Duvall]

IMO Mandel thinks the whole system is corrupt and that the outrage of the NCAA in this case is hypocritical given its commitment to process over action in reviewing other misconduct that has not made it to the nightly news.

And Mandel's argument is utter nonsense. Showing greater outrage over more outrageous actions is not hypocrisy, it is common sense. Acting more decisively in cases where the facts are known over those where they have yet to be proven is not hypocrisy, it is prudence.

[mph]

I guess the enablers of Big Football don't like being threatened, even a little.

That's an ungenerous reading of Mandell's argument. He seems to criticizing the NCAA precisely because today's actions provide the illusion of threatening the culture of big football without really threatening it at all.

Granted, today could be the beginning of a new era in NCAA oversight and a larger attempt to change the culture of college athletics, but I don't fault Mandel for being skeptical. For starters, how is the NCAA going to talk meaningfully about reforming the culture of college athletics without talking about the need to reform the NCAA itself? The problem runs deeper than hypocrisy. If the NCAA fails to follow through with a broader attempt to change the culture of big time college sports it arguably would have been better had they done nothing at all. Because now every time someone points to the NCAA's refusal to take any steps that jeopardize the big money that drives the college sports culture, we'll be reminded of how they dropped the hammer on PSU.

[BlueDevilBrowns]

Something about the NCAA's actions sits wrong with me. I'm probably fine with PSU getting nailed in the end, but it's the opportunistic and self-serving nature of the NCAA's timing and punishment that just seems off. It's less that the people responsible don't deserve punishment than what seems like a embattled organization looking to regain some semblance of increased legitimacy by adding their $0.02 (or $60MM) to a situation that doesn't really need it.

Like I said -- my gut has me feeling that the NCAA getting involved to this level in this particular situation just seem incongruent, at best, and opportunistic, at worst.

I couldn't agree more. Further, from the NCAA's standpoint, I believe timing was crucial to why they "fast-tracked" punishment for PSU. They want this effectively over and done with by the time football season starts in September while showing the public/non-sports media that the NCAA truly "cares" about subjects other than money. Also, I think the NCAA was getting pressured HARD by the university presidents and conference commisions to bring swift action to push this scandal off the front page once and for all and get back to the important business of making tons of $$$$.

From now on, I would imagine most schools will be hard-pressed to conduct independent, internal investigations if the same investigation is the sole basis used to punish them in the end. Why not stall and make the NCAA investigate going forward, at least you'll get a hearing and 24 hours notice of any actions or maybe make sure your "independent" investigation isn't so independent?

Don't be surprised 5-10 years from now, when people start to get nostalgic, the 4 "super-conferences" using the PSU example as 1(of many) reason(s) to break away from the NCAA and form their own athletic association(something like "the ncaa over-stepped its bounds and critically crippled a fine institution w/o allowing for proper procedures and investigations, etc., etc.").

As with most things business/political, there's much more going on than meets the eye.

[SCMatt33]

I haven't read through everything posted in this thread, so I apologize if I end up repeating stuff that was discussed a lot earlier, but I have to express two general thoughts:

1. As far as the sanctions themselves, I think Emmert hit the nail on the head. I do worry a bit about essentially giving him emergency powers and what kind of precedent that can set down the road, but that's barely in my thoughts right now. The sanctions are all completely appropriate. I love that the fines will go directly to related charities. The bowl ban had to be four years. The NCAA clearly needed to give any Penn State football player a life boat if he wants it, and any less than four years would have forced them to either not give freshman and/or sophomores that lifeboat, or destroy their long protected stance that only those who would use up their eligibility before the end of a ban could transfer freely. The scholarships will keep the program at a manageable size for the duration and allow the new coaches and administration to focus on building back up the right way and not the program get too big, too soon. The vacated wins was the only sanction that surprised me, but I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. I find vacating wins to be pretty toothless anyway. I have a shot glass that a Penn State buddy of mine gave me that says 2005 Big Ten Champs with an Orange Bowl logo on it. I just took a look at it and it's still there. It's not like back to the future where all of the pictures disappear. The record book will change, but nothing else.

2. I live in the Philadelphia area, and I have a job that requires me to do a bit of driving. Over the last month or so, I've had to drive out to several of the small towns near State College, and I've listened to a lot of sports talk both in Philly and Central PA. Without experiencing it first hand, it's hard to describe just how much of a bubble Penn State is in. It's not just that its in a rural area with not a whole lot within 50-75 miles. It's that Penn State has no natural rival that keeps things in check. There's no balance. Everything is all Penn State all the time. There is no Auburn to their Alabama. No Louisville to their Kentucky. There isn't even a Kansas St. to their Kansas. This has led to a culture where nobody criticizes. There's no one there to bring Penn State down a notch for it's small imperfections. This all resulted in that "holier than thou" attitude that's getting thrown back in their faces right now. I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush, but somewhere between 75% and 90% of the Penn State fans/alumni/students that I've either talked to personally or heard on the radio just don't get the fundamental cultural issue that exists. They want to say that what happened is simply an aberration and that the perpetrators of the cover up (not including Paterno) needed to go and that will fix everything. They still see Paterno as a great man who made a mistake. I put emphasis on the "a" because they always quote it in the singular. They don't get that Paterno and the others made a conscious decision every day for 14 years to not pursue the allegation further. Every day for 14 years, they continued to allow Sandusky to use Penn State Football facilities including the showers. They knew in '98 that he was at least "horsing around" with kids in the shower, but it wasn't enough for charges to be filed. Sandusky then promised to stop. When it popped up again three years later, how was nothing done?

Joe Paterno is a deeply flawed man, who made terrible decisions for 14 years, but still had a great impact on thousands of young men on his football teams and brought pride and joy to a community. The people who are on the inside of that community, who were directly impacted by Paterno in a positive manner, want to remember him as a pillar of a man, who simple made one terrible mistake. This attitude towards him is what built a culture in which no one would question him. The guy who's getting forgotten a bit in the last week is McQueary. He was probably the only one who was somewhat spared in the Freeh report. Think about the position he was in. He shows up as a player in the early 90's. By this time, Paterno had been the head coach for almost 30 years, and had been at the university for over 40 years already. It had already been decades since pro teams stopped trying to lure him away, and by the time McQueary graduates, there is a new library with Paterno's name on it. McQueary isn't good enough to play at the next level and tries to break into coaching at his alma mater. He witnesses this terrible atrocity and takes it to Paterno, who is the top dog in McQueary's world. He tells McQueary that it's being handled and that's that. Any rational person looks at this and says that it's crazy, but that same year, 2001, the school is busy putting up a statue of this man. It would take a truly exceptional person to have gone against this culture and say stop with that pressure, but it's clear now that no one involved was anywhere near exceptional.

I get really frustrated when I hear Penn State people try and argue technicalities about NCAA jurisdiction and whether Paterno knew exactly what happened between Sandusky and the kids in the shower, as if a man in his 50's showering with kids who are part of an organization for trouble youth wasn't a clear signal that something was wrong already. Maybe history will show that this show of force is the start of a longterm quagmire for the NCAA, but for today, it had to be done.

[Kfanarmy]

....I do worry a bit about essentially giving him emergency powers and what kind of precedent that can set down the road, but that's barely in my thoughts right now....

I wonder just how many times this thought has been expressed throughout history. I wonder just how many evil people have sated themselves in the power so readiy relinquished during emergencies. How many powerless people have regretted making this same compromise. Let us hope the NCAA of the future doesn't find you echoing the regrets of so many others.

[Kfanarmy]

The guy who's getting forgotten a bit in the last week is McQueary....He witnesses this terrible atrocity and takes it to Paterno, who is the top dog in McQueary's world....
I haven't forgotten McQuery....Let's see a 6'4" 215 lb man believes he is seeing a young boy being sodomized in the athletic departments showers and DOES NOT INTERVENE. He is at best the most misguided of all the characters in this story. He had the opportunity to physically stop these atrocities...no middle men, no going to get daddy or the head coach or some campus cop...he could hace stopped it! He is not a hero. His story only comes out because of a long-term investigation...he got along just like everyone else.

[SCMatt33]

I wonder just how many times this thought has been expressed throughout history. I wonder just how many evil people have sated themselves in the power so readiy relinquished during emergencies. How many powerless people have regretted making this same compromise. Let us hope the NCAA of the future doesn't find you echoing the regrets of so many others.

I do think this is a bit different than most cases throughout history. Emmert had to be given explicit power by the executive committee for this one case. The examples throughout history generally involve someone seizing the power given to him and not letting it go back. In this case, that would result in Emmert becoming the NCAA version of Roger Goodell, but because of the narrow parameters of the power, this issues will arise the next time a case comes up that isn't quite as bad as this, but the executive committee doesn't give these powers. What happens if the Dave Bliss at Baylor situation comes up again (for those who are unfamiliar with that case see here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University_basketball_scandal)). Back then, there were no emergency powers granted, but would a similar case be enough for them now? Who knows? I highly doubt that this will devolve into Emmert taking swift action on all major infractions cased, though there's no reason why it couldn't. It will likely just put the NCAA in another position where everyone second guesses them and they look bad in the court of public opinion.

[crimsonandblue]

I wonder just how many times this thought has been expressed throughout history. I wonder just how many evil people have sated themselves in the power so readiy relinquished during emergencies. How many powerless people have regretted making this same compromise. Let us hope the NCAA of the future doesn't find you echoing the regrets of so many others.

Thank you Martin Niemöller. But a quick reminder. Emmert is the president of an organization charged with overseeing college sports. Not, like, Nazi Germany or the world. Or even a small Caribbean country. The evil powers he utilized today allowed him the power to limit a sports team from playing in the post-season for four whole years, give quite so many scholarships as other teams can, and made the school give one-fifth of its annual earnings from the football program (excluding private donations thereto) to charity for five years. He also made the team turn Ws into asterisks.

[anon]

Emmert also rules at the pleasure of the constituent universities. If his power corrupts him, the unsatisfied schools can secede.


Thank you Martin Niemöller. But a quick reminder. Emmert is the president of an organization charged with overseeing college sports. Not, like, Nazi Germany or the world. Or even a small Caribbean country. The evil powers he utilized today allowed him the power to limit a sports team from playing in the post-season for four whole years, give quite so many scholarships as other teams can, and made the school give one-fifth of its annual earnings from the football program (excluding private donations thereto) to charity for five years. He also made the team turn Ws into asterisks.

[throatybeard]

It's a down the middle of the plate 75 mile hour fastball with the wind blowing out. And maybe that's fine. But when I look at what's happened at UNC, or even Auburn/Miss St. with respect to Cam Newton's dad, the approaches, both in speed and process seem.... disjointed, maybe?

Absolutely unbelievable. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that these antics on your part are some sort of childish bias against Jackie Sherrill (erstwhile of A&M), even though he had been gone from Mississippi State for six years when the Newton fol-de-rol took place. Croom ran a completely clean program, and as far as we know, Mullen has so far. Who knows. But in light of the facts, your insinuation is really disgusting.

Auburn did whatever they did. Meanwhile,

Fact I) Newton never played for Mississippi State.

Fact II) After Mississippi State found out that the Newtons were looking for a mafia handshake, they ceased recruiting him. In January 2010, MSU, having committed no violation, nonetheless self-reported the irregularity, that the Newtons solicited pay, to the SEC. (The SEC requires member institutions to go through them first on NCAA compliance issues. Cynics at the smaller schools say that this is to protect the bigger schools like Florida or Tennessee, but myself, I'm just not quite that truther--it makes sense the the conference would like a heads-up before the NCAA brings the pain). At any rate, MSU was out in front on compliance on the Newton issue and your post is really way, way out of line.

Fact III) The rest of the conference branded MSU as snitches, after the SEC leaked the quote from Bond.

Facts are facts, although I know not everyone is swayed by them.

Unbelievable, really.

[throatybeard]

I haven't read through everything posted in this thread, so I apologize if I end up repeating stuff that was discussed a lot earlier, but I have to express two general thoughts:

1. As far as the sanctions themselves, I think Emmert hit the nail on the head. I do worry a bit about essentially giving him emergency powers and what kind of precedent that can set down the road, but that's barely in my thoughts right now. The sanctions are all completely appropriate. I love that the fines will go directly to related charities. The bowl ban had to be four years. The NCAA clearly needed to give any Penn State football player a life boat if he wants it, and any less than four years would have forced them to either not give freshman and/or sophomores that lifeboat, or destroy their long protected stance that only those who would use up their eligibility before the end of a ban could transfer freely. The scholarships will keep the program at a manageable size for the duration and allow the new coaches and administration to focus on building back up the right way and not the program get too big, too soon. The vacated wins was the only sanction that surprised me, but I don't have any strong feelings about it one way or the other. I find vacating wins to be pretty toothless anyway. I have a shot glass that a Penn State buddy of mine gave me that says 2005 Big Ten Champs with an Orange Bowl logo on it. I just took a look at it and it's still there. It's not like back to the future where all of the pictures disappear. The record book will change, but nothing else.

2. I live in the Philadelphia area, and I have a job that requires me to do a bit of driving. Over the last month or so, I've had to drive out to several of the small towns near State College, and I've listened to a lot of sports talk both in Philly and Central PA. Without experiencing it first hand, it's hard to describe just how much of a bubble Penn State is in. It's not just that its in a rural area with not a whole lot within 50-75 miles. It's that Penn State has no natural rival that keeps things in check. There's no balance. Everything is all Penn State all the time. There is no Auburn to their Alabama. No Louisville to their Kentucky. There isn't even a Kansas St. to their Kansas. This has led to a culture where nobody criticizes. There's no one there to bring Penn State down a notch for it's small imperfections. This all resulted in that "holier than thou" attitude that's getting thrown back in their faces right now. I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush, but somewhere between 75% and 90% of the Penn State fans/alumni/students that I've either talked to personally or heard on the radio just don't get the fundamental cultural issue that exists. They want to say that what happened is simply an aberration and that the perpetrators of the cover up (not including Paterno) needed to go and that will fix everything. They still see Paterno as a great man who made a mistake. I put emphasis on the "a" because they always quote it in the singular. They don't get that Paterno and the others made a conscious decision every day for 14 years to not pursue the allegation further. Every day for 14 years, they continued to allow Sandusky to use Penn State Football facilities including the showers. They knew in '98 that he was at least "horsing around" with kids in the shower, but it wasn't enough for charges to be filed. Sandusky then promised to stop. When it popped up again three years later, how was nothing done?

Joe Paterno is a deeply flawed man, who made terrible decisions for 14 years, but still had a great impact on thousands of young men on his football teams and brought pride and joy to a community. The people who are on the inside of that community, who were directly impacted by Paterno in a positive manner, want to remember him as a pillar of a man, who simple made one terrible mistake. This attitude towards him is what built a culture in which no one would question him. The guy who's getting forgotten a bit in the last week is McQueary. He was probably the only one who was somewhat spared in the Freeh report. Think about the position he was in. He shows up as a player in the early 90's. By this time, Paterno had been the head coach for almost 30 years, and had been at the university for over 40 years already. It had already been decades since pro teams stopped trying to lure him away, and by the time McQueary graduates, there is a new library with Paterno's name on it. McQueary isn't good enough to play at the next level and tries to break into coaching at his alma mater. He witnesses this terrible atrocity and takes it to Paterno, who is the top dog in McQueary's world. He tells McQueary that it's being handled and that's that. Any rational person looks at this and says that it's crazy, but that same year, 2001, the school is busy putting up a statue of this man. It would take a truly exceptional person to have gone against this culture and say stop with that pressure, but it's clear now that no one involved was anywhere near exceptional.

I get really frustrated when I hear Penn State people try and argue technicalities about NCAA jurisdiction and whether Paterno knew exactly what happened between Sandusky and the kids in the shower, as if a man in his 50's showering with kids who are part of an organization for trouble youth wasn't a clear signal that something was wrong already. Maybe history will show that this show of force is the start of a longterm quagmire for the NCAA, but for today, it had to be done.

I gave this post positive pitchfork schwag and will be recommending it for the POTM thing.

[throatybeard]

And all the other people on the football staff at the time? The athletic department staff? The President's office? I guess they get off scot free.

Um, the President and the AD are long gone from those posts. Whether their secretaries were complicit I haven't any idea.

What bothers me is, as far I've been able to glean from reports, Spanier is still on the faculty at PSU.

[miramar]

There's no one there to bring Penn State down a notch for it's small imperfections. This all resulted in that "holier than thou" attitude that's getting thrown back in their faces right now. I don't want to paint everyone with the same brush, but somewhere between 75% and 90% of the Penn State fans/alumni/students that I've either talked to personally or heard on the radio just don't get the fundamental cultural issue that exists. They want to say that what happened is simply an aberration and that the perpetrators of the cover up (not including Paterno) needed to go and that will fix everything. They still see Paterno as a great man who made a mistake. I put emphasis on the "a" because they always quote it in the singular. They don't get that Paterno and the others made a conscious decision every day for 14 years to not pursue the allegation further. Every day for 14 years, they continued to allow Sandusky to use Penn State Football facilities including the showers. They knew in '98 that he was at least "horsing around" with kids in the shower, but it wasn't enough for charges to be filed. Sandusky then promised to stop. When it popped up again three years later, how was nothing done?

The Penn State Football Lettermen's Club put out an official statement that proves your point:

"After listening to Dr. Mark Emmert’s press conference this morning, his assertion that a balance between academics and athletics (specifically Penn State Football) did not exist previously is baseless and intellectually dishonest. It is with great pride that the members of our Club know that we have done it the “right way” for several decades and we will not allow Dr. Emmert’s careless remarks to tarnish the legacy of Penn State Football."

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-lettermen-lash-out-at-n-c-a-a/


The "right way"? Talk about being intellectually dishonest.

[A-Tex Devil]

Absolutely unbelievable. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that these antics on your part are some sort of childish bias against Jackie Sherrill (erstwhile of A&M), even though he had been gone from Mississippi State for six years when the Newton fol-de-rol took place. Croom ran a completely clean program, and as far as we know, Mullen has so far. Who knows. But in light of the facts, your insinuation is really disgusting.

Auburn did whatever they did. Meanwhile,

Fact I) Newton never played for Mississippi State.

Fact II) After Mississippi State found out that the Newtons were looking for a mafia handshake, they ceased recruiting him. In January 2010, MSU, having committed no violation, nonetheless self-reported the irregularity, that the Newtons solicited pay, to the SEC. (The SEC requires member institutions to go through them first on NCAA compliance issues. Cynics at the smaller schools say that this is to protect the bigger schools like Florida or Tennessee, but myself, I'm just not quite that truther--it makes sense the the conference would like a heads-up before the NCAA brings the pain). At any rate, MSU was out in front on compliance on the Newton issue and your post is really way, way out of line.

Fact III) The rest of the conference branded MSU as snitches, after the SEC leaked the quote from Bond.

Facts are facts, although I know not everyone is swayed by them.

Unbelievable, really.

Apologies --- I didn't mean to malign Mississippi St. I see how the sentence reads that way, but it's more about the treatment by the NCAA of a particular situation. This time with respect to an individual rather than a school. We agree that Cecil Newton tried to extract money from Mississippi St. The NCAA decided that it should restrict him from Auburn games going forward with no punishment to Newton. Then they came back and said that going forward the player involved will also be subject to penalty. It was very convenient for the NCAA to wait until after what was a marvelous season on the field to change their policy. I don't know whether I stand on whether Newton should be punished if he didn't know what his dad was doing, but the NCAA sure made its decision at a convenient time.

That's the trouble I have here. When there is a easy decision to make, the NCAA brings the hammer. When the decision is more difficult (or perhaps *not* that difficult, but would derail a historic run) the NCAA is much more equivocal depending on the situation. Perhaps, as someone else mentioned, that's prudence. But I feel it's more than that. It's selective enforcement. If the father of WR #2 on a middle of the pack ACC team had solicited money in his kid's recruitment, I wonder if the NCAA would have hemmed and hawed so much as they did the week Cam Newton was temporarily made ineligible by Auburn. I realize it's a bit apples and oranges, but maybe Emmerich will use this .

Anyway, I'm ultimately fine with what the NCAA did to Penn St. after 24 hours. Hopefully this will turn the tide toward consistent punishment, swift investigation, etc. etc. We shall see.

[blazindw]

The Penn State Football Lettermen's Club put out an official statement that proves your point:

"After listening to Dr. Mark Emmert’s press conference this morning, his assertion that a balance between academics and athletics (specifically Penn State Football) did not exist previously is baseless and intellectually dishonest. It is with great pride that the members of our Club know that we have done it the “right way” for several decades and we will not allow Dr. Emmert’s careless remarks to tarnish the legacy of Penn State Football."

http://thequad.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/23/penn-state-lettermen-lash-out-at-n-c-a-a/


The "right way"? Talk about being intellectually dishonest.

What has everyone who has ever been on a sports team been taught? You win as a team, you lose as a team. I'm really surprised at the number of people saying that the innocent players shouldn't have been punished. Well, of course not. But, whenever a teammate is in trouble, the whole team cannot be surprised if they are punished collectively, whether internally or by a higher authority.

[Dev11]

But, whenever a teammate is in trouble, the whole team cannot be surprised if they are punished collectively, whether internally or by a higher authority.

The difference, though, is that no member of the team did anything wrong. The people who ran the team, or the institution that the team represents, did wrong. This isn't Reggie Bush taking money or cars while he is on the team, which negates the team's amateur status. Even if I don't fully side with the things that are coming out of Penn State, I at least see some of the argument against the punishment.

[A-Tex Devil]

The vacating of the wins reminds me of a movie that I can't seem to place (seem to think it's a historical action biopic for some reason) where one guy says to his foe that when he's done with said foe, history won't remember him and his legacy will be erased from the books.

Anyway, I'm (1) trying to place the movie (any help?), and (2) it is clear that is one of the aims of the NCAA here. In 100 years Paterno won't show up in the record books and won't be nearly as memorable, if he's memorable at all, except for the scandal. And based on what is in the Freeh report, that's OK.

[Atlanta Duke]

This is an interesting quote from Penn State trustee Anthony Lubrano

"It's really simple: I am frankly outraged as a member of the board of trustees that the university entered into a consent agreement without discussing it with the board in advance of signing," Lubrano said. "If I'm going to be held accountable, I feel like I should've been part of that process," Lubrano added. "I think it's fair to say that a number of board members are upset. … It really wasn't much of a negotiation (but) everything's negotiable. My view is that we rolled over and played dead. (The board members) want to put Paterno behind them."
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/football/bigten/story/2012-07-23/NCAA-sanctions-Penn-State-Joe-Paterno-Graham-Spanier-board-of-trustees/56444982/1

One of the key findings in the Freeh Report was that "Freeh’s 267-page report portrayed a disengaged board that handed too much responsibility to the university president "

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/13/us/pennsylvania-penn-state-investigation/index.html?npt=NP1

So within 10 days of that report being issued the university president signs a consent decree with the NCAA, for which sanctions are imposed on the football program on grounds including lack of institutional oversight of the football program, without getting the board of trustees to approve the terms of the decree?

Either trustee Lubrano is engaged in a CYA exercise or Penn State is still adrift

[A-Tex Devil]

So within 10 days of that report being issued the university president signs a consent decree with the NCAA, for which sanctions are imposed on the football program on grounds including lack of institutional oversight of the football program, without getting the board of trustees to approve the terms of the decree?

Either trustee Lubrano is engaged in a CYA exercise or Penn State is still adrift

Or, putting my lawyer hat on, maybe the consent decree wasn't properly approved, giving Penn St. an out should they choose to pursue it. Penn St. had no choice from a PR and political standpoint *but* to sign the consent decree immediately. By not seeking board approval, perhaps that leaves them an out? That's an awfully paranoid take on my part. But boiling it down to the simplest level (obviously there is some nuance I am leaving out), the questions become (1) did the president have the authority to sign the consent decree without approval by the board, and (2) if he didn't, should the NCAA have known and required the board to approve.

My uneducated guess is (1) Yes, technically, but it's a significant action that should normally be put in front of the board, and (2) even if, "No" for #1, probably not.

I think there will be some tone deaf/loyal Nittany Lion alumni that will attempt to fight these penalties in some manner. I have no idea if it will get anywhere, though.

*EDITED TO ADD* I think this is moot. I assume the NCAA has good enough attorneys to require representations that the president had actual authority, or even to diligence it themselves to make sure.

[blazindw]

The difference, though, is that no member of the team did anything wrong. The people who ran the team, or the institution that the team represents, did wrong. This isn't Reggie Bush taking money or cars while he is on the team, which negates the team's amateur status. Even if I don't fully side with the things that are coming out of Penn State, I at least see some of the argument against the punishment.

I understand that the argument was in its most elementary form, but the coach is still part of the team. Does it hurt that the actions of people in the higher ups affected them? Yes, and I feel for those players because they didn't do anything wrong. But, they are a part of the football culture that was the root aggressor in all of this, and that, in my mind, is what is being punished. The innocent parts are, unfortunately, still a part of the whole that has been determined to be the evil.

[Mal]

Yes, and I feel for those players because they didn't do anything wrong. But, they are a part of the football culture that was the root aggressor in all of this, and that, in my mind, is what is being punished.

I think that's right. I keep having that thought every time I hear some Penn State fan or alum wailing about how they, personally, are being unfairly "punished" for all this when they weren't involved. There are several answers to that, of course, among them "This isn't about you," "Well, you can thank Graham Spanier, Joe Paterno and co. instead of ripping the NCAA, who's just the enforcement agency," and "How are you being punished? There are still going to be 6 home games this year." It's easiest to just say "You're not being punished. The football program is. It may inconvenience or pain you, yes, but you're not being punished." I think that holds for the team, as well. The end result sort of stinks for them and they're innocent bystanders, but sometimes there's collateral damage in matters like this. They're not the ones being punished - they're just being inconvenienced by the program and institution being punished. The NCAA's doing all it can to make it as easy for the players as possible - they can transfer anywhere else whenever they want with no waiting period to play again, and they can stay at PSU and get their degree without even playing football, should they so choose. They got sold on a program that they couldn't have known was rotten to the core - any anger they have should be directed at the sales staff.

[Jarhead]

Emmert also rules at the pleasure of the constituent universities. If his power corrupts him, the unsatisfied schools can secede.

Nobody will secede over this. They are more likely to hand walking papers to the leader, though, and that's okay with me if the leader goes off the rails.

While I'm here, I have some concern with the attitude of some that the penalty hurts too many people that had nothing to do with the crime. They seem to believe that the Penn State family is being put upon. The penalty should fit the crime without regard to the criminal's family, in this case the students, the football players, the faculty, the alumni, and the community. The players come out better than anyone else, so don't feel sorry for them. They can chooses to leave the family without consequences.

[crimsonandblue]

Or, putting my lawyer hat on, maybe the consent decree wasn't properly approved, giving Penn St. an out should they choose to pursue it. Penn St. had no choice from a PR and political standpoint *but* to sign the consent decree immediately. By not seeking board approval, perhaps that leaves them an out? That's an awfully paranoid take on my part. But boiling it down to the simplest level (obviously there is some nuance I am leaving out), the questions become (1) did the president have the authority to sign the consent decree without approval by the board, and (2) if he didn't, should the NCAA have known and required the board to approve.

My uneducated guess is (1) Yes, technically, but it's a significant action that should normally be put in front of the board, and (2) even if, "No" for #1, probably not.

I think there will be some tone deaf/loyal Nittany Lion alumni that will attempt to fight these penalties in some manner. I have no idea if it will get anywhere, though.

*EDITED TO ADD* I think this is moot. I assume the NCAA has good enough attorneys to require representations that the president had actual authority, or even to diligence it themselves to make sure.

If just the president is signing on behalf of the university, I'm not sure what good reps as to authority would be, since they're coming from the guy who wouldn't have authority. This all happened pretty quickly. The board likely gave Erickson some authority to negotiate with the NCAA. Who knows whether it was sufficient to allow entry into the consent decree.

I think what the NCAA is relying on is that Penn State would be howled out of the barn if they attempt to renege on this deal now. Of course, their administration already looks like a group of tone-deaf clowns, so maybe the board won't care.

I think PSU suing to save their football program would be the cherry on top of the disconnect that community has over the importance of sports.

[sagegrouse]

If just the president is signing on behalf of the university, I'm not sure what good reps as to authority would be, since they're coming from the guy who wouldn't have authority. This all happened pretty quickly. The board likely gave Erickson some authority to negotiate with the NCAA. Who knows whether it was sufficient to allow entry into the consent decree.

I think what the NCAA is relying on is that Penn State would be howled out of the barn if they attempt to renege on this deal now. Of course, their administration already looks like a group of tone-deaf clowns, so maybe the board won't care.

I think PSU suing to save their football program would be the cherry on top of the disconnect that community has over the importance of sports.

I think that even the pettifogs at the NCAA knew enough to verify that Erickson had authority to agree to the deal.

sagegrouse

[crimsonandblue]

I think that even the pettifogs at the NCAA knew enough to verify that Erickson had authority to agree to the deal.

sagegrouse

I imagine you're right. And good word. Still, I've seen a couple of board members make noises about not knowing what was being agreed to. Doesn't scream "tremendous oversight."

[Turk]

Odds and ends:

1. Re Letterman's Club: Actually, I think they're right, from their perspective. The players were held to higher academic standards than NCAA minimums and graduated at a higher rate under Paterno than at other football factories. It goes undenied in all of this that the players did nothing wrong. They played their football, went to class, won their share of games, earned pride and respect in those ugly uniforms, and moved on to their "life's work", as Chuck Noll used to call it. Let's not get mixed up here. The imbalance between the football program and the administration documented by Freeh was way above the players' pay grade (pun intended), and they had no knowledge of that.

2. Regardng Trustees: Lubrano has earned a rep as a loose cannon, passionate Paterno / PSU booster, and someone chasing his own agenda. The chairperson of the BOT was with Erickson during their pressers and made her own comments, so there was some representation yesterday. One of the changes might be a restructuring of the board. I looked up PSU and they have 25 people on the board, not counting the politicians and 16 (?!?) emeriti trustees. I don't know what's typical in most large state schools, but 25 seems like a lot of cats to herd. I am also reminded of Dilbert's Law of Decision Making, where the quality of the decision in a meeting is calculated by taking the IQ of the smartest person there and dividing by the number of people in the room. My guess is that the BOT Chairperson had all the key players in her back pocket, and the ones who were excluded didn't matter or were on the wrong committee.

3. Oh, and one more cheap shot at the NCAA: Given that Sandusky's victims are likely to receive sigificant financial compensation, I would expect to see detailed accounting down to the penny of what they do with the $60 million. If they skim anything off the top for their admin, then my already low assessment of their motivation will sink even further, if that's still possible at this stage...

[blazindw]

3. Oh, and one more cheap shot at the NCAA: Given that Sandusky's victims are likely to receive sigificant financial compensation, I would expect to see detailed accounting down to the penny of what they do with the $60 million. If they skim anything off the top for their admin, then my already low assessment of their motivation will sink even further, if that's still possible at this stage...

I believe Penn State has to set up the endowment and pay into it, so I figure any accounting will come from them as it will undoubtedly have to be supplied to the NCAA to prove compliance.

[Mal]

Odds and ends:

1. Re Letterman's Club: Actually, I think they're right, from their perspective. The players were held to higher academic standards than NCAA minimums and graduated at a higher rate under Paterno than at other football factories. It goes undenied in all of this that the players did nothing wrong. They played their football, went to class, won their share of games, earned pride and respect in those ugly uniforms, and moved on to their "life's work", as Chuck Noll used to call it. Let's not get mixed up here. The imbalance between the football program and the administration documented by Freeh was way above the players' pay grade (pun intended), and they had no knowledge of that.

Fair enough (assuming they are in fact talking about the academic/athletic balance w/r/t individual athletes, rather than on an institutional basis). But did you not laugh audibly at the plaintive cry of "We're not gonna let that mean ole' Mark Emmert tarnish the reputation of Penn State football!" in the last line? Yep, the legacy's in a shambles because the head of the NCAA said disparaging things.

[formerdukeathlete]

I understand that the argument was in its most elementary form, but the coach is still part of the team. Does it hurt that the actions of people in the higher ups affected them? Yes, and I feel for those players because they didn't do anything wrong. But, they are a part of the football culture that was the root aggressor in all of this, and that, in my mind, is what is being punished. The innocent parts are, unfortunately, still a part of the whole that has been determined to be the evil.

Yes, but, maybe not so innocent.

McQueary should have gone to the police, no matter what, but his stint as a grad assistant was running out. He was told by Paterno that they had nothing for him. Then, after he reported the incident, he kept his job.

The janitor who witnessed Sandusky raping a child in 2000 should have gone to the police, but did not because he believed he would have been fired if he had done so.

Players and others who may have reported Sandusky's behaviors to Paterno and staff prior to Paterno's decision to demote Sandusky and push him out as a coach should have gone public with what they knew. They may have felt that they would have lost their scholarships or jobs or even been blackballed in their pursuit of a slot with another team or another job.

It was unfortunate that any of these people were put in a position to have to choose their own self preservation over taking appropriate action to finally draw public attention to Sandusky's behavior and stopping that behavior.

[sporthenry]

Yes, but, maybe not so innocent.

McQueary should have gone to the police, no matter what, but his stint as a grad assistant was running out. He was told by Paterno that they had nothing for him. Then, after he reported the incident, he kept his job.

The janitor who witnessed Sandusky raping a child in 2000 should have gone to the police, but did not because he believed he would have been fired if he had done so.

Players and others who may have reported Sandusky's behaviors to Paterno and staff prior to Paterno's decision to demote Sandusky and push him out as a coach should have gone public with what they knew. They may have felt that they would have lost their scholarships or jobs or even been blackballed in their pursuit of a slot with another team or another job.

It was unfortunate that any of these people were put in a position to have to choose their own self preservation over taking appropriate action to finally draw public attention to Sandusky's behavior and stopping that behavior.

Well the idea that players didn't report anything they saw is just hearsay and just trying to throw the players in with the rest of the guys. Perhaps I'm wrong but I haven't read one thing that said any player had any idea about what was going on. Heck, most of the current players or commitments probably had no idea who Sandusky was before this investigation. And they seemed to have brought in a completely new staff so again punishing the innocent.

I understand the innocent often get punished like USC, Memphis, UMass, etc and that in some ways it holds the institution accountable so they can't just play the denial game. But I will say that I feel bad for the current coaches and players and that this seems like the NCAA vindictively trying to make Penn State lose to get back at their administration and fans for idolizing Joe Pa. Tim Keown wrote an article for ESPN and while I may not agree with it all, I think it raises some interesting questions. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194508/ncaa-loses-handle-turning-penn-state-losing-program

Either way, I will say that I will be rooting for Penn State b/c this has become an underdog story if there ever was one. So far, it appears many of the players want to stick together which is cool to see them come together. It'll be interesting to see what the #1 QB for 2013 does with his commitment to Penn State but I can't help but feel bad for Bill O'Brien or the current players. And yes they can transfer without sitting out a year but they would have missed spring practice and apart from a position like RB or D line, it would seem to be tough to go to a team now and learn a new scheme in a month.

[killerleft]

Well the idea that players didn't report anything they saw is just hearsay and just trying to throw the players in with the rest of the guys. Perhaps I'm wrong but I haven't read one thing that said any player had any idea about what was going on. Heck, most of the current players or commitments probably had no idea who Sandusky was before this investigation. And they seemed to have brought in a completely new staff so again punishing the innocent.

I understand the innocent often get punished like USC, Memphis, UMass, etc and that in some ways it holds the institution accountable so they can't just play the denial game. But I will say that I feel bad for the current coaches and players and that this seems like the NCAA vindictively trying to make Penn State lose to get back at their administration and fans for idolizing Joe Pa. Tim Keown wrote an article for ESPN and while I may not agree with it all, I think it raises some interesting questions. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194508/ncaa-loses-handle-turning-penn-state-losing-program

Either way, I will say that I will be rooting for Penn State b/c this has become an underdog story if there ever was one. So far, it appears many of the players want to stick together which is cool to see them come together. It'll be interesting to see what the #1 QB for 2013 does with his commitment to Penn State but I can't help but feel bad for Bill O'Brien or the current players. And yes they can transfer without sitting out a year but they would have missed spring practice and apart from a position like RB or D line, it would seem to be tough to go to a team now and learn a new scheme in a month.

A quote by Tim Keown of ESPN, from the link you provided: "It's like taping a bird's wings to its sides and then calling the cat over to have a look." THAT'S what makes the NCAA's decision so ugly. There was a cruelty in the nature of the thing. What Sandusky did was vile and contemptible. Shouldn't civilized people rise above that?

[allenmurray]

Either way, I will say that I will be rooting for Penn State b/c this has become an underdog story if there ever was one.

Underdog story, huh? An underdog is someone who is thought to be overpowered, but who perseveres despite the odds. Penn State, one of the largest univeristies and largest sports programs in the country is now the underdog?

There is an underdog here - actually a few underdogs. Children who faced overwhelming odds against people and institutions far, far more powerful. They are the boys who were raped, and then had their rapes covered up by a group of coaches, athletic directors, and university officials who had lost all perspective on what is truly important in the world. Who so valued a football program that they allowed this victimization to continue out of fear of bad publicity.

My god, have you forgotten who the real victims are here? To see Penn State as the underdog is simply beyond the pale.

[Wander]

THAT'S what makes the NCAA's decision so ugly. There was a cruelty in the nature of the thing. What Sandusky did was vile and contemptible. Shouldn't civilized people rise above that?

I think you're using the word "cruelty" quite loosely. The kids will still get to play football and get a scholarship to college, either at Penn State or elsewhere if they wish. The coaching staff has jobs that I imagine pay better than 90% of college football programs. The fans are still going to be treated to a gameday experience that is much cooler than at least half of division 1A programs. And whatever players and coaches stick around are going to earn a massive amount of respect from the fans. I'm not going to argue there's no punishment at all, but I'd take the exact opposite overall: the NCAA did a good job with sanctions that hurt the program, but didn't inflict terrible damage upon the innocent individuals involved (the death penalty would have).

[Kfanarmy]

Thank you Martin Niemöller. But a quick reminder. Emmert is the president of an organization charged with overseeing college sports. Not, like, Nazi Germany or the world. Or even a small Caribbean country. The evil powers he utilized today allowed him the power to limit a sports team from playing in the post-season for four whole years, give quite so many scholarships as other teams can, and made the school give one-fifth of its annual earnings from the football program (excluding private donations thereto) to charity for five years. He also made the team turn Ws into asterisks.


I think you miss the point. Put differently, giving up power to an authority, any authority, when emotions are high and there is a seeming emergency is rarely a good idea. My call on history was to highlight the point. You correctly minimize the likely importance of this event in the anals of history yet you've failed to also note the complete lack of an emergency in this emergency. With the scandal over and plodding its way through the courts, the NCAA has assumed emergency powers. Again, rarely does the gravity of the situation necessitate the loss of power given/taken to respond.

[allenmurray]

I think you're using the word "cruelty" quite loosely. The kids will still get to play football and get a scholarship to college, either at Penn State or elsewhere if they wish. The coaching staff has jobs that I imagine pay better than 90% of college football programs. The fans are still going to be treated to a gameday experience that is much cooler than at least half of division 1A programs. And whatever players and coaches stick around are going to earn a massive amount of respect from the fans. I'm not going to argue there's no punishment at all, but I'd take the exact opposite overall: the NCAA did a good job with sanctions that hurt the program, but didn't inflict terrible damage upon the innocent individuals involved (the death penalty would have).

You have nailed it. These kids will still get to play college football where ever they choose that believes they are skilled enough (and if they were skilled enough to be recruited by PSU they will have lots of options). If they choose to no longer play football they still get a free college education. Coaches will still earn salaries that tower over folks who are teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc. Fans still get to attend games. To call this punishment cruel is a poor choice of words. Cruel is not being able to feed your family. Cruel is being imprisoned for o crime. Cruel is being raped by a football coach and not being protected by others who could have put an end to it. What the NCAA did to PSU harldy fits any reasonable definition of the word "cruel".

[flyingdutchdevil]

You have nailed it. These kids will still get to play college football where ever they choose that believes they are skilled enough (and if they were skilled enough to be recruited by PSU they will have lots of options). If they choose to no longer play football they still get a free college education. Coaches will still earn salaries that tower over folks who are teachers, fire fighters, police officers, etc. Fans still get to attend games. To call this punishment cruel is a poor choice of words. Cruel is not being able to feed your family. Cruel is being imprisoned for o crime. Cruel is being raped by a football coach and not being protected by others who could have put an end to it. What the NCAA did to PSU harldy fits any reasonable definition of the word "cruel".

Cruel is also a poor choice of words in this case. The example in bold is somewhere between atrocious and diabolical, maybe worse.

[allenmurray]

Cruel is also a poor choice of words in this case. The example in bold is somewhere between atrocious and diabolical, maybe worse.

Maybe it is a good thing that it is such a rare occurance that no apt word springs to mind. I'm not sure atrocious or diabolical are strong enough either. We're in territory where a new word needs to be invented.

[sporthenry]

Underdog story, huh? An underdog is someone who is thought to be overpowered, but who perseveres despite the odds. Penn State, one of the largest univeristies and largest sports programs in the country is now the underdog?

There is an underdog here - actually a few underdogs. Children who faced overwhelming odds against people and institutions far, far more powerful. They are the boys who were raped, and then had their rapes covered up by a group of coaches, athletic directors, and university officials who had lost all perspective on what is truly important in the world. Who so valued a football program that they allowed this victimization to continue out of fear of bad publicity.

My god, have you forgotten who the real victims are here? To see Penn State as the underdog is simply beyond the pale.

I think this is the definition of a straw man argument. No I haven't forgotten who the real victims are and this will always be a trump card if you want to go that route. But this punishment does nothing for the children nor does it do anything to deter future behavior like this. I forget who said it, but the legal punishments will be great enough to deter future behavior like this. What is the point of the NCAA's punishment? If you really wanted to do something, then give them the death penalty for 1-3 years. Yes if you want to bring up the children, then heck Penn State should never have a football program and maybe all of college athletics should be cancelled if it would stop this from happening again.

But if we can get beyond this, we'll see that the NCAA pretty much wants to humiliate and watch Penn State lose. Taking away 20 scholarships, bowl participation, and allowing everyone to transfer was pretty much giving the death penalty but saying you still have to go out there and play Michigan and OSU on National TV and get stomped on. They want the program to be publicly humiliated and that is why I think they are an underdog.

And as far as transferring goes, how are they going to transfer to a school in August and expect to play in a month from now. No team is going to take one of their QBs and actually play them with less than a month in the program. That probably goes for most other positions although not to the extent of a QB.

So yes, what was done was horrific, tragic, and anything else you want to describe it as. But that still doesn't mean that what happened to Matt McGloin in his senior year was right either.

[Mal]

I think you miss the point. Put differently, giving up power to an authority, any authority, when emotions are high and there is a seeming emergency is rarely a good idea. My call on history was to highlight the point. You correctly minimize the likely importance of this event in the anals of history yet you've failed to also note the complete lack of an emergency in this emergency. With the scandal over and plodding its way through the courts, the NCAA has assumed emergency powers. Again, rarely does the gravity of the situation necessitate the loss of power given/taken to respond.

Except, the NCAA has not assumed or exercised any powers this week that it didn't already have. I believe you're vastly overstating what's happened here. There was no line of panicked, confused schools thinking about this like an emergency, and shortsightedly imbuing the NCAA with limitless authority, at the risk of it being used against them in tyrannical fashion in the future. All that happened was the organization's Board of Directors, comprised of university presidents, (a) determined that this was, in fact, a situation where NCAA action was justified under its consituent documentation, and (b) authorized the organization's president (whom they choose and can remove or terminate at their leisure) to act unilaterally rather than through the typical procedures. It's no different than a corporate board resolving to enter into a transaction and authorizing the officers of the company to go make it happen and sign documents to effectuate it. This was more than justified based on the unique circumstances and the fact that the investigatory work had already been completed for them and was more thorough than they'd ever have been able to conduct in their own 2+ year process. It made far more sense to act now than to wait another 6-7 years for the entirety of the legal fallout to conclude and go from there. Imagine how impotent and silly they would have looked then. Also, it's entirely possible that the board members would have been seen as vindictive or indulging grudges against Penn State had they sanctioned as a body the way Emmert did. Conversely, consider the criticism the NCAA Board has received in the last few years in connection with its treatment of Auburn and to a lesser degree USC. Had they put their heads together and come back with a penalty less severe than the one Emmert cooked up, there would be considerable whining about how they're an old boys club afraid of justly punishing one of their own. Emmert provided both a better chance for a fair ruling, as well as cover. It's hardly a panic move likely to set precedent for the future.

[Atlanta Duke]

Odds and ends:

2. Regardng Trustees: Lubrano has earned a rep as a loose cannon, passionate Paterno / PSU booster, and someone chasing his own agenda. The chairperson of the BOT was with Erickson during their pressers and made her own comments, so there was some representation yesterday. One of the changes might be a restructuring of the board. I looked up PSU and they have 25 people on the board, not counting the politicians and 16 (?!?) emeriti trustees. I don't know what's typical in most large state schools, but 25 seems like a lot of cats to herd. I am also reminded of Dilbert's Law of Decision Making, where the quality of the decision in a meeting is calculated by taking the IQ of the smartest person there and dividing by the number of people in the room. My guess is that the BOT Chairperson had all the key players in her back pocket, and the ones who were excluded didn't matter or were on the wrong committee....

Still hard to say what was going on with the BOT.

Today we hear this from PA Governor Tom Corbett

[Corbett] said as a trustee he was advised in advance of the NCAA's announcement that sanctions were coming, but he did not know in advance what they were.

http://www.post-gazette.com/stories/sports/psu/corbett-comments-on-ncaa-sanctions-on-penn-state-646146/

Since the sanctions were spelled out in the consent decree, it sounds like Corbett is contending the consent decree was not presented to him for approval. Although Corbett is just one trustee, it would seem to me the Governor of Pennsylvania, who has a major say on the level of funding received by Pennsylvania's flagship public university, might be someone the university president would keep in the loop. Unless of course the university president knew Corbett wanted to maintain plausible deniability and did not want to have been placed in a position of supporting or opposing the sanctions before Penn State's president signed the consent decree.

[formerdukeathlete]

Well the idea that players didn't report anything they saw is just hearsay and just trying to throw the players in with the rest of the guys. Perhaps I'm wrong but I haven't read one thing that said any player had any idea about what was going on. Heck, most of the current players or commitments probably had no idea who Sandusky was before this investigation. And they seemed to have brought in a completely new staff so again punishing the innocent.

I understand the innocent often get punished like USC, Memphis, UMass, etc and that in some ways it holds the institution accountable so they can't just play the denial game. But I will say that I feel bad for the current coaches and players and that this seems like the NCAA vindictively trying to make Penn State lose to get back at their administration and fans for idolizing Joe Pa. Tim Keown wrote an article for ESPN and while I may not agree with it all, I think it raises some interesting questions. http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194508/ncaa-loses-handle-turning-penn-state-losing-program

Either way, I will say that I will be rooting for Penn State b/c this has become an underdog story if there ever was one. So far, it appears many of the players want to stick together which is cool to see them come together. It'll be interesting to see what the #1 QB for 2013 does with his commitment to Penn State but I can't help but feel bad for Bill O'Brien or the current players. And yes they can transfer without sitting out a year but they would have missed spring practice and apart from a position like RB or D line, it would seem to be tough to go to a team now and learn a new scheme in a month.

Asserting anything regarding the statements of others is hearsay. Anything short of a player or coach or staff member asserting that they personally saw Sandusky doing this or that would be hearsay.

What you mean to say in discounting what I am suggesting is that this is speculation. However, lets do apply some common sense. Victims have come forth that they were molested by Sandusky in Penn State locker rooms dating back to the early 70s. So, that means from, say, 1972 until 1998, when Sandusky was demoted and told to retire (at 52 and perhaps the No. 1 DC in the country), Sandusky likely was molesting boys in the Penn State locker rooms - over this period of 26 years. Over this very lengthy period, I think it highly probably that Sandusky's odd or illegal behavior around boys in showers and elsewhere was observed and reported to Paterno - a number of times. It is highly probable in my view that this was what lead Paterno to start to force him out in 1998 - and before the 1998 incident which was reported to the police. In my mind, I am 100% confident that such complaints had been made over that 26 year time period. It just screams this from a common sense point of view. Its the molestation in the locker rooms dating back to the early 70s, the large numbers of boys Sandusky hearded through those facilities since the 1970s, coupled with Paterno forcing out the number one DC in the country in his prime (and before official complaints had been made to authorities). I think there is no other logical explanation. I would not be surprised if the NCAA had some feedback that these complaints had been made over those earlier years, and that their decision to bring the hammer down was based on more than the Freeh report. Again, that is speculation to a degree.

[crimsonandblue]

I think that even the pettifogs at the NCAA knew enough to verify that Erickson had authority to agree to the deal.

sagegrouse

Apparently the BOT is meeting to discuss Erickson. At least the hot heads are claiming he did not obtain BOT authorization and needed to (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html).

[allenmurray]

But this punishment does nothing for the children nor does it do anything to deter future behavior like this. I forget who said it, but the legal punishments will be great enough to deter future behavior like this. What is the point of the NCAA's punishment?

But that still doesn't mean that what happened to Matt McGloin in his senior year was right either.

Legal punishments will deal with the illegal acts. But what prompted those illegal acts was the belief that football was bigger than anything else - so big in fact that maintaining the carefully crafted image of the football program was more important to Paterno and the others that they were willing to sacrifice chldren for the skae of a full stadium and the myth of a program's integrity. It is that culture and mindset that the NCAA had to deal with - which they did, and which the legal system could not touch. Those who decry the pain of Penn State football, fans, and businesses are missing the bigger point (or choosing to overlook it becasue they can't bear to reflect on the reality that for 3 hours of Saturday glory people who they though were heros were willing to overlook the lives of children).

As for Matt McGloin and others, they can blame Sandusky, Paterno, and the university officials for creating this mess. It is better to blame the person who set the house onfire than to blame the firefighters who are trying to put it out.

[Mal]

But if we can get beyond this, we'll see that the NCAA pretty much wants to humiliate and watch Penn State lose ... They want the program to be publicly humiliated and that is why I think they are an underdog.

Has anyone actually said this? Perhaps you're taking the schadenfreude probably being felt by some less than charitable, say, Ohio State fans, and ascribing that to the NCAA. It's a lot simpler explanation to say that the NCAA wanted to penalize/punish Penn State the institution, as well as extract some compensatory damages and set a deterrent for the future, and the fact that their football team may get humiliated and lose a lot more than it used to is neither here nor there despite being a forseeable effect. I haven't sensed much glee on the part of the NCAA in all this. You seem to be looking for a reason to give victimhood status to the new coaches and the players who stick around, which is what I think underlies Allenmurray's reaction.


Taking away 20 scholarships, bowl participation, and allowing everyone to transfer was pretty much giving the death penalty but saying you still have to go out there and play Michigan and OSU on National TV and get stomped on.

No one has stated that Penn State University must put a football squad on the field for the next five years. The sanctions effectively say "If you choose to rebuild your program, you will do so organically, under our supervision, rather than from the position of being an elite program who just spent a year or two in the penalty box." There's a reformatory impulse in the sentence here, not just a pay your time and you're cleansed, forgive and forget mentality. I don't know that that's so evil. The cult of personality that pervaded Penn State football has to be replaced with something else - putting them in a timeout for a few years wouldn't likely accomplish that.


And as far as transferring goes, how are they going to transfer to a school in August and expect to play in a month from now. No team is going to take one of their QBs and actually play them with less than a month in the program. That probably goes for most other positions although not to the extent of a QB.

Judging by the list of schools who've expressed interest in a variety of players at a variety of positions in just 48 hours, I don't know that I buy it being all that difficult. Besides, if it's that difficult to transfer at this point in the summer, then aren't you undercutting your claims that Penn State's destined to be humiliated all the time?


But that still doesn't mean that what happened to Matt McGloin in his senior year was right either.

Speaking of straw men. What "happened" to Matt McGloin? No one did anything to him; he was collaterally affected by something happening way above his individual position. As I mentioned with different wording upthread, if Matt McGloin feels he was wronged, he should take it up with Graham Spanier. There are negative consequences to some of the innocent individuals here, no doubt. If I might again speak on Allenmurray's behalf, fair or not, it's just awfully tough to feel more than the slightest twinge of sympathy for most of them when we see those negative consequences as ultimately stemming from the particularly sickening circumstances that set off the dominoes. There is an inevitable comparison of the equities here.

[OldPhiKap]

Apparently the BOT is meeting to discuss Erickson. At least the hot heads are claiming he did not obtain BOT authorization and needed to (http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html).

This creates quite the conumdrum. The BOT is in a world of hurt with Nittany Nation if they back the president's decision, and in a world of hurt in broader public opinion if they try to backslide on the penalty.

This would be a Charlie Foxtrot of the hightest order if indeed the President acted ultra vires and without proper authorization.

My guess is that the BOT ultimately determines the President had the authority, and sidesteps the issue.

[Atlanta Duke]

This creates quite the conumdrum. The BOT is in a world of hurt with Nittany Nation if they back the president's decision, and in a world of hurt in broader public opinion if they try to backslide on the penalty.

This would be a Charlie Foxtrot of the hightest order if indeed the President acted ultra vires and without proper authorization.

My guess is that the BOT ultimately determines the President had the authority, and sidesteps the issue.

The last page of the consent decree above Erickson's signature not surprisingly states his signature reflects the University has taken all necessary actions to execute the consent decree and the University's entry into the decree is consisitent with and allowed under state law.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/ncaa/files/2...1207236PDF.pdf

While anything is possible, my bet is Erickson had to have been assured by the lawyers all necessary authority to sign had been secured. It does indicate the role of the BOT in oversight of university operations is still a dysfunctional work in progress.

[OldPhiKap]

While anything is possible, my bet is Erickson had to have been assured by the lawyers all necessary authority to sign had been secured. It does indicate the role of the BOT in oversight of university operations is still a dysfunctional work in progress.

Or, somewhat ambiguous. But I agree with your post.

I do find it hard to believe that a single University President has the authority to consent to a $60 million fine. Maybe he has authority for up to $12 million, and that's why they split it up the way they did. I am sure there is a dollar threshold spelled out somewhere.

He may need to bring the Presidential mace to the meeting:

http://www.psu.edu/ur/about/symbols.html




This may help sort things out:

http://www.psu.edu/trustees/governance.html

(Edit to add: that site also has minutes and even video of BOT meetings. Not sure if this will be included or not, but due to Sunshine Laws it may be required. Don't know PA law).

[Des Esseintes]

And as far as transferring goes, how are they going to transfer to a school in August and expect to play in a month from now. No team is going to take one of their QBs and actually play them with less than a month in the program. That probably goes for most other positions although not to the extent of a QB.

I'm in alignment with the arguments of Allen and Mal, but the transfer issue should be fleshed out a bit more. The NCAA is allowing any Penn State player to transfer between now and preseason 2013. The other teams in college football are allowed to take PSU even beyond their typical scholarship limits as long as they take that many fewer recruits the following year. Which means Penn State's players will not get squeezed out of a school that wants them due to a numbers crunch. To be sure, some players who want to transfer will fare better than others. Lowly regarded backups will have a tougher time finding a home than guys with NFL aspirations. But the NCAA has made it as easy as reasonably possible for players to continue their careers elsewhere.

I would also add that before we go overboard wringing our hands about the players we should remember that NCAA sanctions happen. They just do, in the same way that innocent careers are often damaged when a politician suffers a scandal. It comes with the territory of the job. Sanctions aren't overly common, and a punishment such as Penn State's is unprecedented. Nevertheless, if you are looking to attend a high Division I school, there is a non-zero chance that your school could get hit with a bowl ban or scholarship reductions during your time there. It happened to Alabama, USC, Auburn, Miami, Ohio State, now Penn State. That's a prestigious list and nowhere near comprehensive. Your college football destination is a risk, and every player should go in with his eyes open about that (small) chance of sanctions. We can feel bad for the players without decrying NCAA "cruelty." To do so is to overlook how we got here in the first place.

[blazindw]

Well, if you think the hammer was dropped on Penn State, this would have been Paul Bunyan's axe brought with the strength of 1 billion Thors x 1 billion Hulk smashes:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

[Atlanta Duke]

Well, if you think the hammer was dropped on Penn State, this would have been Paul Bunyan's axe brought with the strength of 1 billion Thors x 1 billion Hulk smashes:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Wow - another nugget from the linked story - based on this quote I was unaware Penn State is closing down!

Another trustee said there is a growing movement among some trustees to attempt to challenge the consent decree in court.

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

With this mindset on the BOT that without a successful football program there is no Penn State no wonder this scandal festered

[Duvall]

Wow - another nugget from the linked story - based on this quote I was unaware Penn State is closing down!

Another trustee said there is a growing movement among some trustees to attempt to challenge the consent decree in court.

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

With this mindset on the BOT that without a successful football program there is no Penn State no wonder this scandal festered

And that's why the criminal and civil actions weren't enough.

[Jderf]

Legal punishments will deal with the illegal acts. But what prompted those illegal acts was the belief that football was bigger than anything else - so big in fact that maintaining the carefully crafted image of the football program was more important to Paterno and the others that they were willing to sacrifice chldren for the sake of a full stadium and the myth of a program's integrity.

I believe this implies that you would be in favor of preemptively dismantling the Duke basketball program, no? Under this line of thinking, it is only a matter of time before our "myth of integrity" comes tumbling down as well.

Personally, I don't see this as an organizational issue. Penn State football as a whole didn't commit these crimes -- a small handful of people did. Not football. People.

Yes, you can argue that if it had not been for the exalted cultural status of the football program, this might have been uncovered much earlier. If it was not for the power of those responsible for the cover-up, this would not have gone on for as long as it did. This is true. But it is too simplistic to simply respond to that by saying, "No one anywhere should have any power." Or, "Nothing can be allowed to be culturally important." At the end of the day, there are still going to be people in positions of power, and there are still going to be traditions which are culturally important. And there will always be the possibility that people with those powers -- and people within those traditions -- do terrible things. Taking a wrecking ball to Penn State football isn't going to change that.

Though I'm by no means outraged by the NCAA's decision, I ultimately think it was a mistake. In a situation like this you have to punish the people responsible, not the culture in which they committed their crimes. You have to be cautious and carry out your punishment with a scalpel. The NCAA brought a sledgehammer.

A lifetime in prison for the guilty -- that's justice. But 60 million in fines? That's smells a lot more like opportunism.

[Newton_14]

Wow - another nugget from the linked story - based on this quote I was unaware Penn State is closing down!

Another trustee said there is a growing movement among some trustees to attempt to challenge the consent decree in court.

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

With this mindset on the BOT that without a successful football program there is no Penn State no wonder this scandal festered

You read my mind. That was the exact same quote that stuck with me after reading the article. They just don't get it.

[Jderf]

A lifetime in prison for the guilty -- that's justice. But 60 million in fines? That's smells a lot more like opportunism.

I feel I should clarify here. It is not the money which I find opportunistic. The money is going to a foundation and that is perfectly laudable. Rather, it's the headline-grabbing, attention-seeking nature of the NCAA decision which I find to be opportunistic.

Why was this so urgent that Emmert had to bypass regulations to hand out instant punishment? Certainly not because crimes were still being committed. Instead, I think it is fairly obvious that Emmert wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get the NCAA out there while it was still a front page issue.

[throatybeard]

I feel I should clarify here. It is not the money which I find opportunistic. The money is going to a foundation and that is perfectly laudable. Rather, it's the headline-grabbing, attention-seeking nature of the NCAA decision which I find to be opportunistic.

This is the biggest scandal in the history of NCAA member institutions. Heck, in the 1990s, Miami had someone in the athletic department embezzling Pell grant funds to support a cocaine habit, among other malfeaseances. We all know what happened on the cover of SI after that. And this is way, way bigger. Point shaving? Please. So how is trotting out a frumpy NCAA President with Gingrich-hair, to make a terse statement at a presser--how is that "attention seeking?" This was going to get covered intensely no matter what the NCAA decided. If anything, I feel that ESPN has been excessively opportunistic in covering it at the expense of everything else. But we passed that milestone during the OJ trial, so it's nothing new.


Why was this so urgent that Emmert had to bypass regulations to hand out instant punishment? Certainly not because crimes were still being committed. Instead, I think it is fairly obvious that Emmert wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get the NCAA out there while it was still a front page issue.

Because the Freeh report short-cutted the whole process. They didn't have to spend months and months.

[SCMatt33]

I feel I should clarify here. It is not the money which I find opportunistic. The money is going to a foundation and that is perfectly laudable. Rather, it's the headline-grabbing, attention-seeking nature of the NCAA decision which I find to be opportunistic.

Why was this so urgent that Emmert had to bypass regulations to hand out instant punishment? Certainly not because crimes were still being committed. Instead, I think it is fairly obvious that Emmert wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get the NCAA out there while it was still a front page issue.

I don't see how the NCAA could ever issue sanctions on this without it grabbing headlines. Anything to do with this scandal has grabbed headlines, whether it was back in November when it came to light, January when Joe Paterno Died, or now with the Freeh report. Let's say the NCAA did follow their normal procedure, which would have happened had Penn State refused the penalties offered to them. The investigatory stage would have been skipped no matter what because even if Penn State formally disagreed with parts of the findings of the Freeh report, the investigation itself was already done, and it was done with more manpower and expertise than the NCAA could have ever done. So that puts the timeline of the NCAA sending Penn State a formal Notice of Allegations last week. Penn State would have 90 days to respond. That takes us to mid to late October. Given the severity of this case, I don't think the NCAA would drag their feet past mid-November for a hearing, and their findings would be released 6 weeks later, right about the time Penn State is getting ready to play a bowl game. Not only would handing down sanctions later bring this whole mess back to the forefront again, but then you have to ask if Penn State is allowed to play in this years bowl game or not. Even if they do, by waiting the extra few months, Penn State essentially loses a year in its recovery process.

I think the NCAA acting now was the best way to do it. It brings some level of closure to this chapter of the story instead of dragging out speculation for months. It was already in the headlines anyway so it's not bringing back a dormant story. Penn State gets a year jump on the recovery process. The only thing that I would concede is that the NCAA didn't need the dog and pony show press conference in Indianapolis. They could have released a simple statement explaining the penalties and reasoning and then have Emmert do some carefully chosen interviews a day or two later to field some questions about it. I'm not going to blame them for it too much, though, because figuring out the public's reaction to the media is a tough thing, and I can easily envision the NCAA coming out with the sanctions in a softer fashion like I described and then be accused of not being open and transparent about it.

At the end of the day, this whole situation is just so terrible that there is no way to do it right. Any time something moves forward, it just brings back thoughts of terrible atrocities. No matter what your opinion of the subject is, the predominant emotions are shock and anger that this could have occurred, and it seems like those are the emotions driving everyone's reaction from the public to Penn State to the NCAA. I was talking to my dad last night about this and we ended up in a heated argument about some stupid minor point. The more I think about it, the more I realize that everything is just driven by so much anger about it, and that, frankly, is the appropriate response.

[-jk]

The AP is reporting (http://m.apnews.com/ap/db_268750/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=Kgkoli7M) that the "school trustees met on the subject at a State College hotel Wednesday, and afterward issued a statement calling the NCAA punishment "unfortunate" but better than the alternative - the so-called "death penalty." "

I guess despite the bluster, the penalty stands.

-jk

[Kfanarmy]

Legal punishments will deal with the illegal acts. But what prompted those illegal acts was the belief that football was bigger than anything else - so big in fact that maintaining the carefully crafted image of the football program was more important to Paterno and the others that they were willing to sacrifice chldren for the skae of a full stadium and the myth of a program's integrity. It is that culture and mindset that the NCAA had to deal with - which they did, and which the legal system could not touch. Those who decry the pain of Penn State football, fans, and businesses are missing the bigger point (or choosing to overlook it becasue they can't bear to reflect on the reality that for 3 hours of Saturday glory people who they though were heros were willing to overlook the lives of children).

As for Matt McGloin and others, they can blame Sandusky, Paterno, and the university officials for creating this mess. It is better to blame the person who set the house onfire than to blame the firefighters who are trying to put it out. there is just so much odd logic in this retribution.

1) who is it the NCAA is now discouraging? These undefined groups of people who are apparently cowed by NCAA fines and sanctions against the university but who would otherwise be fully willing to go to jail or pay a hefty personal civil liability? Seriously, what audience is the NCAA punishing? ... "Joe Paterno and the others" are to be disuaded? ... I don't think Paterno will get the message in time and I suspect "the others" are on their way to one court or another.

One should be careful in attacking "the myth of integrity" of major athletic programs whose fanbases believe in the coaches, administration, the players, and community. Shall we punssh all fanbases who believe to the extent that they would find a pedafile running amok unbelievable?....Is it shocking that those who weren't in the know didn't know?...Do they need to be punished by the NCAA because, after all there's no proof that they individually knew anything? We must punish a culture that believes in integrity because some don't have it?

2) The firefighters analogy isn't appropos...In this case the firefighters are busy cleaning up in the courthouses. This action is more like the president of the homeowners association showing up while the embers are glowing to fine survivors for the loud noises and smoke in the air.

I believe most who support the NCAAs action here, are doing so largely as part of a mob mentality that wants to strike one of the big dogs while it is down.

Our neighbors' dog had a horrible case of mange that infected every pet in the neighborhood. Now that the vet has got it under control, lets hand the president of the kennel club a stick so that he can hit the dog hard enough to dissuade him from ever getting mange again.

[Jarhead]

there is just so much odd logic in this retribution.

1) who is it the NCAA is now discouraging? These undefined groups of people who are apparently cowed by NCAA fines and sanctions against the university but who would otherwise be fully willing to go to jail or pay a hefty personal civil liability? Seriously, what audience is the NCAA punishing? ... "Joe Paterno and the others" are to be disuaded? ... I don't think Paterno will get the message in time and I suspect "the others" are on their way to one court or another.

One should be careful in attacking "the myth of integrity" of major athletic programs whose fanbases believe in the coaches, administration, the players, and community. Shall we punssh all fanbases who believe to the extent that they would find a pedafile running amok unbelievable?....Is it shocking that those who weren't in the know didn't know?...Do they need to be punished by the NCAA because, after all there's no proof that they individually knew anything? We must punish a culture that believes in integrity because some don't have it?

2) The firefighters analogy isn't appropos...In this case the firefighters are busy cleaning up in the courthouses. This action is more like the president of the homeowners association showing up while the embers are glowing to fine survivors for the loud noises and smoke in the air.

I believe most who support the NCAAs action here, are doing so largely as part of a mob mentality that wants to strike one of the big dogs while it is down.

Our neighbors' dog had a horrible case of mange that infected every pet in the neighborhood. Now that the vet has got it under control, lets hand the president of the kennel club a stick so that he can hit the dog hard enough to dissuade him from ever getting mange again.

Wow, that sure is a stretch. We have here a handful of criminals who, for whatever reason, participated in or covered up a crime. It happens every day. Criminals are punished, and their families suffer. In this case it is a University that is being punished, and that family is suffering, but aren't they just upset that they will now have a losing program for a few years. Just what is being done to take care of the primary victims in this case, those young people that Sandusky abused. I'd rather see them taken care of, and I don't care that Penn State fans have been evicted from the bragging zone.

[hurleyfor3]

If anything, I feel that ESPN has been excessively opportunistic in covering it at the expense of everything else. But we passed that milestone during the OJ trial, so it's nothing new.

If you really want to see opportunistic media whoring, try living in a teevee market where a shooting spree just occurred. I've been preferring espn, actually.

[Newton_14]

First, props to everyone for discussing this in a civil manner. That is a tribute to the DBR community. I know the NCAA involvement is a fine line, but I do agree they had to act, and I believe the penalties are fair and appropriate. I respect the opinion's of those who beg to differ, but after reading the Freeh report, I came to the conclusion that the NCAA had to act. Like Throaty, Allenmurray, SCMATT and others have alluded to, this is the biggest sports scandal in our lifetime. Nothing else approaches it. For me, Penn St Football was at the heart of the matter. Had this been Sandusky committing his crimes off campus, with no involvement of any kind with Penn St the university or Penn St Football, with all the witnesses having no connection at all to those two entities, then it's fair to state that it was 100% a police and the courts matter, with no involvement by the NCAA necessary. Unfortunately, that was not the case.

Sandusky was a longtime Penn St Football coach. Penn St Football was the bait, the lure, to entice the victims to walk into the Devils lair. The football coach had access to the football facilities before and after his retirement, to use for his evil deeds. Penn St Football Bowl games were also used as bait/enticement to lure the victims in. The witnesses of the 2 known "caught in the act" instances were a Penn St school employee, and another Penn St Football coach. The leaders that were made aware of the crimes, were all Penn St men including the Penn St iconic Head Coach. The decision to cover up the past crimes, and more importantly, to allow the crimes to continue on for 14 years, was 100% about protecting Penn St Football, and about protecting the iconic Head Coach and his legacy. The cover up kept the Football machine rolling, and insured that the power that was Penn St Football would continue to rack up wins on Saturday. Sandusky was there of course, in his suite, having a beverage, watching football, enjoying life.

Meanwhile, at least five Penn St men, the Prez, Vice Prez, AD, HC, AC, were all there, watching and coaching football, passing Sandusky along the way before and after games, walking to and from his stadium suite. What they thought when they saw Sandusky at the games, is something only they know. All we know is all 5 knew the secret, and they kept it to themselves to protect football. I honestly do not know how the four men that are alive sleep at night. The decision the 3 living leaders made in 2002, still strikes me as one of the most bizarre decisions I have ever seen. As I stated in the other thread, how 4 rational, educated men, made that decision, and continued to coexist with Sandusky throughout every day life, is something I just cannot come to terms with. They chose football over children's well being.

So for me, this was always a football related issue. Therefore, in my view, it was not only appropriate for the NCAA to act, it was a case of they had to act.

[cspan37421]

forgive me if this already appeared, but 3 hrs ago Yahoo sports reported that the punishments for Penn State were a step down from what a majority of school presidents wanted, which was a 4 year death penalty (sorry, but that still sounds like a contradiction). What they got was considered less harsh, a compromise. It's not clear to me what bargaining power PSU had in the deal to get it "reduced." the article says something about refusing to accept sanctions. I don't know how that would work.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/penn-state-faced-four-years-no-football-had-231629377--ncaaf.html

It's going to be really interesting to see what happens now. There's been some grumbling that maybe Erickson didn't have authority to sign off on the deal. What if the deal gets scuttled and this is the alternative?

4 years no football certainly would get their attention, perhaps reassess their priorities. I'm not sure letting them play at serious disadvantage for four years is going to do anything but make them bitter and fume throughout the punishment period. They'll schedule 4 that they can win and then hope to win 2 or 3 more. Football will still rule Saturdays, but the W/L will just be a big buildup to revenge when they're next at full strength. By taking it off the table entirely, it would really leave a void and time to contemplate. Maybe nothing would change, regardless, but boy, looking at some of the reactions to the consent decree, well, it sure looks like a situation in which they're willing to do anything to atone for the past, except to give up winning football.

edit: looks like moderator -jk linked to a similar story but I didn't get the full import from his post. Sounds like the Trustees are now OK with Erickson's signing of the consent decree - not because he had the authority, but because they wouldn't have refused the compromise deal given the choice between that and a 4 year ban.

[A-Tex Devil]

I believe this implies that you would be in favor of preemptively dismantling the Duke basketball program, no? Under this line of thinking, it is only a matter of time before our "myth of integrity" comes tumbling down as well.

Personally, I don't see this as an organizational issue. Penn State football as a whole didn't commit these crimes -- a small handful of people did. Not football. People.

Yes, you can argue that if it had not been for the exalted cultural status of the football program, this might have been uncovered much earlier.

I linked an article upthread that made the argument that Penn State and Happy Valley were "peculiarly suited" to this kind of scandal. It's a really key point, and it's not to argue this couldn't happen anywhere, just that all the factors were in play in State College. PSU/State College is a unique combination of isolated geography, cult of personality, tradition, lack of a real rivalry and a fawning media, that you can't really point to anywhere else. Schools like Duke, Texas A&M, Kentucky b-ball, etc. have aspects of these things, but there is always something that can keep it in check.

If this combination of things led to what happened, this unique situation needed to get busted up as violently as possible. While I still am squeamish that it was the NCAA that made the move, frankly that's something the NCAA can help with that the government can't. The innocent bystander argument that I myself made just doesn't hold water after 72 hours of processing it.

[Duvall]

Why was this so urgent that Emmert had to bypass regulations to hand out instant punishment? Certainly not because crimes were still being committed. Instead, I think it is fairly obvious that Emmert wanted to strike while the iron was hot and get the NCAA out there while it was still a front page issue.

I don't think that's obvious at all. A lengthy infractions process would have given the NCAA many more opportunities to get the attention of the public. It seems much more likely that the NCAA wanted to impose its penalties and get out of this process before an entire season of nationally televised Penn State games that forced everyone to ask each week what kind of penalties were coming.

[Jderf]

I don't think that's obvious at all. A lengthy infractions process would have given the NCAA many more opportunities to get the attention of the public. It seems much more likely that the NCAA wanted to impose its penalties and get out of this process before an entire season of nationally televised Penn State games that forced everyone to ask each week what kind of penalties were coming.

Yeah... as you and other posters have pointed out, I probably came out a bit too strong on the timing issue. The Freeh report certainly expedited things, and I hadn't fully considered that before.


I linked an article upthread that made the argument that Penn State and Happy Valley were "peculiarly suited" to this kind of scandal. It's a really key point, and it's not to argue this couldn't happen anywhere, just that all the factors were in play in State College. PSU/State College is a unique combination of isolated geography, cult of personality, tradition, lack of a real rivalry and a fawning media, that you can't really point to anywhere else. Schools like Duke, Texas A&M, Kentucky b-ball, etc. have aspects of these things, but there is always something that can keep it in check.

This, however, I cannot get behind. There may be some unique characteristics that distinguish Penn State football from Duke Basketball, as you point out, but it is nonetheless are a difference in degree, not in kind. I still see the two as "mirror programs," where one had the phenomenally bad luck of hiring a serial child molester.

(I am in no way diminishing the status of the true victims here, who are and always will be the innocent children; I am merely pointing out that, in a certain very real way, Penn State has also been victimized by Sandusky et al, although not even close to the same extent.)

In an important sense, Sandusky is something that "happened" to Penn State. For all external appearances, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Penn State football before this scandal broke -- in fact, it was upheld as a paragon of morality -- and if it wasn't for this horrible, horrible man, that appearance would have actually reflected reality. Unfortunately it didn't. Sandusky did the terrible things he did, and Paterno and others utterly failed when faced with a black and white moral dilemma of the highest order.

As a fanbase, we have to face up to the unlikely-but-very-possible fact that something similarly awful could be happening at Duke right now. We simply cannot know. But that doesn't mean we should preemptively shut down the program or instantaneously stop believing that K is a good person, "just to be safe." That would be absurd. And I think it is equally absurd to do so after-the-fact, when it can no longer even do any good. All this tragedy can really do is re-emphasize something that all of us should already know: that we, as individuals, have to be constantly vigilant against wrong-doing in all spheres of our lives. Not just in football and basketball. But also at work, at school, at church -- everywhere. We can't just demolish Penn State football and say, "There. Problem solved." There will always be bad people out there, and it's up to the good people to stop them.

Sadly, that didn't happen in this case, which is why the people who failed must be punished. By the courts. But punishing Penn State football is, at best, an orthogonal issue. Like I said above, I'm by no means outraged by it, but I ultimately think it was a mistake on the part of the NCAA.

(Whoa! I really got up on a pedestal there. Sorry about that.)

[cspan37421]

In an important sense, Sandusky is something that "happened" to Penn State. For all external appearances, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Penn State football before this scandal broke -- in fact, it was upheld as a paragon of morality -- and if it wasn't for this horrible, horrible man, that appearance would have actually reflected reality. Unfortunately it didn't. Sandusky did the terrible things he did, and Paterno and others utterly failed when faced with a black and white moral dilemma of the highest order.

As a fanbase, we have to face up to the unlikely-but-very-possible fact that something similarly awful could be happening at Duke right now. We simply cannot know. But that doesn't mean we should preemptively shut down the program or instantaneously stop believing that K is a good person, "just to be safe." That would be absurd. And I think it is equally absurd to do so after-the-fact, when it can no longer even do any good. All this tragedy can really do is re-emphasize something that all of us should already know: that we, as individuals, have to be constantly vigilant against wrong-doing in all spheres of our lives. Not just in football and basketball. But also at work, at school, at church -- everywhere. We can't just demolish Penn State football and say, "There. Problem solved." There will always be bad people out there, and it's up to the good people to stop them.



While the 2nd paragraph I quoted above is very sensible, I strongly beg to differ that the Sandusky thing "happened to Penn State" and that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with PSU football before the scandal broke.

The only way I can see that as true is if we're in a world where no one can actually act on behalf of a university or a football program. But that's not the case here. Spanier acted upon behalf of the University; Curley on behalf of PSU athletics; Paterno on behalf of PSU football. IIRC Sandusky played for PSU and came up through the ranks. Someone brought him along, he wasn't an anonymous drifter that surreptitiously set up a child rape shop in the Lasch football building.

Because these people acted on behalf of PSU and PSU football, the coverup didn't happen to PSU, PSU did it, and PSU gets punished. At least, that's how it seems to me, but IANAL.

It also seems plain to me that PSU football was well-rotten "before the scandal broke" - the coverup had been going on for about 14 years before the scandal broke, maybe longer. Add the lack of institutional control over disciplining players for off-field behavior, there was plenty wrong there.

[ojaidave]

Yeah... as you and other posters have pointed out, I probably came out a bit too strong on the timing issue. The Freeh report certainly expedited things, and I hadn't fully considered that before.



This, however, I cannot get behind. There may be some unique characteristics that distinguish Penn State football from Duke Basketball, as you point out, but it is nonetheless are a difference in degree, not in kind. I still see the two as "mirror programs," where one had the phenomenally bad luck of hiring a serial child molester.

(I am in no way diminishing the status of the true victims here, who are and always will be the innocent children; I am merely pointing out that, in a certain very real way, Penn State has also been victimized by Sandusky et al, although not even close to the same extent.)

In an important sense, Sandusky is something that "happened" to Penn State. For all external appearances, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Penn State football before this scandal broke -- in fact, it was upheld as a paragon of morality -- and if it wasn't for this horrible, horrible man, that appearance would have actually reflected reality. Unfortunately it didn't. Sandusky did the terrible things he did, and Paterno and others utterly failed when faced with a black and white moral dilemma of the highest order.

As a fanbase, we have to face up to the unlikely-but-very-possible fact that something similarly awful could be happening at Duke right now. We simply cannot know. But that doesn't mean we should preemptively shut down the program or instantaneously stop believing that K is a good person, "just to be safe." That would be absurd. And I think it is equally absurd to do so after-the-fact, when it can no longer even do any good. All this tragedy can really do is re-emphasize something that all of us should already know: that we, as individuals, have to be constantly vigilant against wrong-doing in all spheres of our lives. Not just in football and basketball. But also at work, at school, at church -- everywhere. We can't just demolish Penn State football and say, "There. Problem solved." There will always be bad people out there, and it's up to the good people to stop them.

Sadly, that didn't happen in this case, which is why the people who failed must be punished. By the courts. But punishing Penn State football is, at best, an orthogonal issue. Like I said above, I'm by no means outraged by it, but I ultimately think it was a mistake on the part of the NCAA.

(Whoa! I really got up on a pedestal there. Sorry about that.)

You're right, Sandusky "happened" to Penn State. If Penn State had done the right thing the first time he was caught, the Penn State would still be "Penn State," and we would still be talking about the school and how they do things the "right way." They had the opportunity, and instead the most powerful people at the scholl chose not to deal with it. So when it mattered most, they didn't do things the "right way."

The school had a moral and legal responsibility to deal with Sandusky when his actions first came to light. If they had, Paterno would still be the winningest football coach and others would not be facing jail time. Oh, and a number of young boys wouldn't have been raped.

[killerleft]

I think that the underdog role someone said Penn State will assume will come to pass immediately. How could it not? Even if you believe that the punishments are just and fair, hundreds of thousands of folks are just collateral damage. Penn State will play football, they'll look pitiful against everybody on their schedule, and sympathy will accrue. Within a couple years, Penn State could possibly turn all the negatives into positives as far as recruiting goes, such as Rick Pitino used his "unforgettables" as a bridge to better teams.

Mark it down. Whether the punishments are fair or not, there will be lots of good vibes focussed on the underdog Penn State football team, and Pennsylvania is fertile recruiting ground. So overall, in five or six years Penn State could be a much better program than it has been for the last few years. Heck, that much is almost assured.

[niveklaen]

I think this consent decree will end up saving penn state tons of money. At every one of the civil suits against them they will point to this and say 'see, we have already been punished, no need for punitive damages, let us pay a million for pain and sufffering and the like' - they will use this $60million as a shield against repeated requests for $100million verdicts

[Jderf]

While the 2nd paragraph I quoted above is very sensible, I strongly beg to differ that the Sandusky thing "happened to Penn State" and that there was nothing fundamentally wrong with PSU football before the scandal broke.

My distinction between the appearance and reality of Penn State seems to have vanished here. I never said that there was nothing wrong before the scandal, only that there appeared to be nothing wrong. Very big difference.


The only way I can see that as true is if we're in a world where no one can actually act on behalf of a university or a football program. But that's not the case here. Spanier acted upon behalf of the University; Curley on behalf of PSU athletics; Paterno on behalf of PSU football. IIRC Sandusky played for PSU and came up through the ranks. Someone brought him along, he wasn't an anonymous drifter that surreptitiously set up a child rape shop in the Lasch football building.

Because these people acted on behalf of PSU and PSU football, the coverup didn't happen to PSU, PSU did it, and PSU gets punished. At least, that's how it seems to me, but IANAL.

I think the hundreds of members of faculty, staff, and administrators at PSU would strongly disagree. While there's definitely some validity to your point, I would argue that the people in question acted entirely on their own behalf, and it was precisely because they acted poorly as representatives of the university that they ended up doing things that were ultimately disastrous for PSU.

[cspan37421]

My distinction between the appearance and reality of Penn State seems to have vanished here. I never said that there was nothing wrong before the scandal, only that there appeared to be nothing wrong. Very big difference.

Indeed - I'm terribly sorry I missed your "external appearances" intro clause.


I think the hundreds of members of faculty, staff, and administrators at PSU would strongly disagree. While there's definitely some validity to your point, I would argue that the people in question acted entirely on their own behalf, and it was precisely because they acted poorly as representatives of the university that they ended up doing things that were ultimately disastrous for PSU.

On this one, the problem with the view is that it implies that anytime someone in an organization does something illegal - even to benefit the organization - they can instead be cast as operating on their own behalf, so an organization can never itself be held responsible for what its people do.

This seems to get close to issues of "corporate personhood" in a very interesting, yet disallowed, PPB kind of way.

[Jderf]

On this one, the problem with the view is that it implies that anytime someone in an organization does something illegal - even to benefit the organization - they can instead be cast as operating on their own behalf, so an organization can never itself be held responsible for what its people do.

This seems to get close to issues of "corporate personhood" in a very interesting, yet disallowed, PPB kind of way.

That's a good point. In the end, I think we just differ in our view of the point at which something becomes a group act as opposed to an individual act. For me, even though the people making the decision were at the head of the university, it was such a small handful of people, especially in relation to such a large public university, that I cannot bring myself to consider it to be systemic. I tend to think of that group as a tumor within the organization, and a tumor can and should be excised from the body -- even if it is a brain tumor. For you, however, it seems to pass that threshold of group action. But you're right in that further discussion would probably take us very far off track. Agree to disagree, I suppose.

[Mal]

I think that the underdog role someone said Penn State will assume will come to pass immediately. How could it not? Even if you believe that the punishments are just and fair, hundreds of thousands of folks are just collateral damage. Penn State will play football, they'll look pitiful against everybody on their schedule, and sympathy will accrue. Within a couple years, Penn State could possibly turn all the negatives into positives as far as recruiting goes, such as Rick Pitino used his "unforgettables" as a bridge to better teams.

Mark it down. Whether the punishments are fair or not, there will be lots of good vibes focussed on the underdog Penn State football team, and Pennsylvania is fertile recruiting ground. So overall, in five or six years Penn State could be a much better program than it has been for the last few years. Heck, that much is almost assured.

An intriguing theory, and you may very well turn out to be right. I'm sure that's the stance O'Brien will take for rebranding the program. From my end, I kind of doubt it will play out quite as successfully as you seem to believe, though. There's a certain combination of the timing of the sanctions and the existing locker room bonding holding the roster together for the moment. It appears they're about to lose their most dynamic offensive skill player to USC, however. That may or may not start a domino effect, who knows. Penn State should be a competent team this season with whatever remains in place, and probably won't look so pitiful as to evoke a ton of sympathy. The real damage will come after this season, I think. The high school commits are in no hurry to make up their minds about whether to decommit and latch on somewhere else or not, but you can bet they're being re-recruited heavily. One or two have already dropped. Underclassmen will have all Fall to be wooed by other programs, since they can leave anytime - they also may not be in a huge hurry. Over time, the prospect of sticking around for another 3 years to move up on a team with no bowl prospects, that will inevitably be thin in both depth and talent behind them, will likely have an effect, and as the emotion cementing the team together wears off, I would expect a number of them will decide the "us against the world" thing isn't all that compared to a chance to go to Alabama or somewhere. In two years, it's likely that what would have been the best upperclassmen have departed, the underclassmen are not very good because O'Brien will find it very difficult to woo great talent to a place where they'll have no bowl opportunity for most of their career, and the scholarship limits will mean depth is extremely spotty. At that point they're likely to lose most of their Big Ten games, which of course makes it harder to recruit against everybody, but especially against the other Big Ten programs tilling the Pennsylvania soil and maybe even thumping you on your home field (primarily Michigan and Ohio State). The lack of shared Big Ten bowl revenue for the next several years will put them at a disadvantage monetarily from where they're used to operating, as well. Going forward from there, I think the brand name is generally poisonous for awhile for all but in-state recruits. It may be possible to revamp solely with the best talent from Pennsylvania, but some of that talent has started to leak out and create pipelines to Columbus and Ann Arbor and Lansing in the meantime, so there's more and more competition to keep it. Even if O'Brien or whomever manages to put together a great class 4 years from now, they'll need 3 years to mature and gel.

The macro factor here is that football is different from basketball. As much as the Unforgettables are to be respected, Kentucky basketball in '91-'92 went nowhere without Jamal Mashburn. One guy can make a huge difference in basketball. A great QB or RB can help a lot in football, but when the team's only allowed to carry 2/3 the scholarship players its opponents are (or whatever it's going to be here), a great QB or RB isn't going to have the supporting cast to make much of an impact. Whether it's offense, defense, special teams, speed, strength, whatever - there are going to be places, simply based on the fact that the last quarter of the roster is walk-ons, where Penn State has very exploitable weaknesses. Injuries will be a killer in that sort of scenario. The ability to get better by practicing against good competition will be weakened by the fact part of even the second string is walk-ons. It's just a lot harder to reprise a football powerhouse than it is a basketball powerhouse.

[A-Tex Devil]

This, however, I cannot get behind. There may be some unique characteristics that distinguish Penn State football from Duke Basketball, as you point out, but it is nonetheless are a difference in degree, not in kind. I still see the two as "mirror programs," where one had the phenomenally bad luck of hiring a serial child molester.

(I am in no way diminishing the status of the true victims here, who are and always will be the innocent children; I am merely pointing out that, in a certain very real way, Penn State has also been victimized by Sandusky et al, although not even close to the same extent.)

In an important sense, Sandusky is something that "happened" to Penn State. For all external appearances, there was nothing fundamentally wrong with Penn State football before this scandal broke -- in fact, it was upheld as a paragon of morality -- and if it wasn't for this horrible, horrible man, that appearance would have actually reflected reality. Unfortunately it didn't. Sandusky did the terrible things he did, and Paterno and others utterly failed when faced with a black and white moral dilemma of the highest order.

As a fanbase, we have to face up to the unlikely-but-very-possible fact that something similarly awful could be happening at Duke right now. We simply cannot know. But that doesn't mean we should preemptively shut down the program or instantaneously stop believing that K is a good person, "just to be safe." That would be absurd. And I think it is equally absurd to do so after-the-fact, when it can no longer even do any good. All this tragedy can really do is re-emphasize something that all of us should already know: that we, as individuals, have to be constantly vigilant against wrong-doing in all spheres of our lives. Not just in football and basketball. But also at work, at school, at church -- everywhere. We can't just demolish Penn State football and say, "There. Problem solved." There will always be bad people out there, and it's up to the good people to stop them.

Sadly, that didn't happen in this case, which is why the people who failed must be punished. By the courts. But punishing Penn State football is, at best, an orthogonal issue. Like I said above, I'm by no means outraged by it, but I ultimately think it was a mistake on the part of the NCAA.

(Whoa! I really got up on a pedestal there. Sorry about that.)

Despite what our b-ball coach may have intimated before the Sandusky situation arose, I disagree pretty strongly that Duke basketball and PSU football are mirror programs. I also think it's naive to think that the particular culture, geography and environment in State College didn't foster an ideal situation for Sandusky to flourish and the subsequent coverup. It checks off just about every box that would allow something like this to go under the radar for about 15 years. Again -- it's not to say something like this *couldn't* happen at Duke or elsewhere, but let's take Duke as an example.

Duke is a small private university in a mid-sized city where local authority has proven to not be loyal and sometimes downright hostile. It is covered by local press that are hardly beholden to the university - and again are often hostile. The coaching staff of the b-ball team, while alumni, aren't engrained for 30+ years, and in fact, there is turnover. So while I agree that Duke has the same "cult of personality" trait that Penn St. had with Paterno, the surrounding factors, including our "cult of personality's" and the basketball program's influence over university, local authorities and press, and the community impact the program has both socially and financially, doesn't come close to comparing to the impact of Paterno and Penn State football on State College and Penn State. These are the checks and balances that make me more comfortable Duke wouldn't have a similar cover up. It's not a guarantee, certainly, but the environment in Durham and at the university is markedly different than Happy Valley.

[formerdukeathlete]

I don't think that's obvious at all. A lengthy infractions process would have given the NCAA many more opportunities to get the attention of the public. It seems much more likely that the NCAA wanted to impose its penalties and get out of this process before an entire season of nationally televised Penn State games that forced everyone to ask each week what kind of penalties were coming.

What also helped is that Sandusky's trial was not delayed, and concluded in a decisive manner. This, combined with the Freeh Report allowed the NCAA to act quickly. So did Penn State's willingness to plead their case and strike a deal. I disagree with the deal. I think the majority of NCAA member presidents who were in favor of shutting down the Penn State Program for 4 years were correct. This hammer down was too lenient, given what had gone on for so many years.

Vicim 2, the one anally raped by Sandusky as witnessed by McQueary, has come forward. His lawyers have investigated his case thoroughly, and they are in the process of suing Penn State.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/trustees-sanctions-better-football-ban-063918993--ncaaf.html

'In a pair of voicemails recorded last year, released with the statement and posted online by the lawyers, a voice that's purportedly Sandusky's expresses his love and says he wants to express his feelings ''up front.''

The voicemails are dated Sept. 12 and Sept. 19, less than two months before the former Penn State coach was arrested on child sex abuse charges. Sandusky was convicted in June of 45 sex abuse counts and awaits sentencing.

The second voicemail asks whether Victim 2 would like to attend Penn State's next game.

Sandusky left ''numerous'' voicemails for their client that fall, the attorneys said.'

So, apparently, Sandusky still went after them when they were adults. This would seem to make it even more likely that players and other staff would have commented or complained about Sandusky beginning in the early 1970s.

'The statement from the man's attorneys said Victim 2 suffered ''extensive sexual abuse over many years both before and after the 2001 incident Michael McQueary witnessed.'''

[Jderf]

Despite what our b-ball coach may have intimated before the Sandusky situation arose, I disagree pretty strongly that Duke basketball and PSU football are mirror programs.

Well, it wasn't really my main point anyway, but I only meant it in the shallow sense of them both being (or having been) nationally prominent programs, held up as examples of "winning the right way," with legendary head coaches. You are absolutely correct in that if you look any deeper than that, the parallels start to diverge.


I also think it's naive to think that the particular culture, geography and environment in State College didn't foster an ideal situation for Sandusky to flourish and the subsequent coverup. It checks off just about every box that would allow something like this to go under the radar for about 15 years.

Well it certainly would be naive to think that. You are, again, correct in saying that the conditions lent themselves well to the whole situation. I wasn't trying to argue against that, and if I gave that impression, I'm sorry.

(In addition, it's also just kinda strange that I suggested there could be rampant, unknown corruption at Duke, and in response was labelled naive. :rolleyes:)

Here's the point I was trying to make:

The problem with punishing PSU as a whole for cultivating this environment is that there is (or, at least, was) nothing inherently sinister about it. Are we really saying that we should punish PSU for being in a small, geographically isolated college town that loves their local team, has strong support from the local media, with incredibly dedicated alumni and a (formerly) revered head coach? Between high school and college, football and basketball, there must be hundreds of small towns across America that meet this description. Should we shut all of them down? No. Because there is nothing essentially evil about that. In fact, I could think of a lot of people who would call that an American ideal. But what is evil about all this is that a monster of a person came along and abused such an idyllic place, followed by a failure of the few who knew about it to put a stop to it. That is why I've been arguing that they should be the ones who are punished, rather than the context in which they committed those crimes.

[Des Esseintes]

The problem with punishing PSU as a whole for cultivating this environment is that there is (or, at least, was) nothing inherently sinister about it. Are we really saying that we should punish PSU for being in a small, geographically isolated college town that loves their local team, has strong support from the local media, with incredibly dedicated alumni and a (formerly) revered head coach? Between high school and college, football and basketball, there must be hundreds of small towns across America that meet this description. Should we shut all of them down? No. Because there is nothing essentially evil about that. In fact, I could think of a lot of people who would call that an American ideal. But what is evil about all this is that a monster of a person came along and abused such an idyllic place, followed by a failure of the few who knew about it to put a stop to it. That is why I've been arguing that they should be the ones who are punished, rather than the context in which they committed those crimes.

Jderf, thanks for sticking to your guns in this discussion. Though I disagree with your position, it is a very reasonable one, and your defense of it has been edifying. A few things:

1) Let's recall that Penn State is not being punished. The Penn State football program is being punished. No loss of academic funding; no punishment of students; no loss of faculty. Penn State football will be less competitive for a while. That's it.

2) You may argue that the coverup was the behavior of individuals and not an institution, but, I'm sorry, the coach, the AD, the university president, never mind the (more understandable) complicity of an assistant coach, some janitors, and god knows who else? That is Penn State football. If the entire top of the management pyramid for PSU football does not act for the program, who or what does? Would we have to learn that it was part of spring practice for players, between Oklahoma drill and wind sprints, to hold down 11-year-olds and shout Jerry encouragement?

3) For me, the biggest reason that I accept the heavy punishment handed down by the NCAA is that, in covering up a terrible crime, Penn State football committed a similarly terrible crime, and that should be punished. Everyone has been talking about the need for sanctions to accomplish something. That's fine to an extent, and the $60M fine to benefit child-abuse charities is laudable. But the extreme pragmatist view feels limited. If a dude knocks over a Quik-Trip and guns down the clerk while doing so, I want that guy to go to jail. Whether the victim's family wins a big civil judgment is an important but secondary issue. Whether he reforms is an important but secondary issue. Of primary importance: a) seeing what we as a society can do to prevent guys from shooting convenience store clerks going forward, and b) bringing justice to this particular killer. His crime, similar to Penn State and Sandusky's, is one in which true restitution is impossible. It's great if the NCAA punishment helps other people in some way, and it will be fantastic if it leads to meaningful reform and soul-searching within the Penn State community. But there should be a real punishment, too. The crime was too serious.

[mph]

Jderf, thanks for sticking to your guns in this discussion. Though I disagree with your position, it is a very reasonable one, and your defense of it has been edifying. A few things:

1) Let's recall that Penn State is not being punished. The Penn State football program is being punished. No loss of academic funding; no punishment of students; no loss of faculty. Penn State football will be less competitive for a while. That's it.

2) You may argue that the coverup was the behavior of individuals and not an institution, but, I'm sorry, the coach, the AD, the university president, never mind the (more understandable) complicity of an assistant coach, some janitors, and god knows who else? That is Penn State football. If the entire top of the management pyramid for PSU football does not act for the program, who or what does? Would we have to learn that it was part of spring practice for players, between Oklahoma drill and wind sprints, to hold down 11-year-olds and shout Jerry encouragement?

3) For me, the biggest reason that I accept the heavy punishment handed down by the NCAA is that, in covering up a terrible crime, Penn State football committed a similarly terrible crime, and that should be punished. Everyone has been talking about the need for sanctions to accomplish something. That's fine to an extent, and the $60M fine to benefit child-abuse charities is laudable. But the extreme pragmatist view feels limited. If a dude knocks over a Quik-Trip and guns down the clerk while doing so, I want that guy to go to jail. Whether the victim's family wins a big civil judgment is an important but secondary issue. Whether he reforms is an important but secondary issue. Of primary importance: a) seeing what we as a society can do to prevent guys from shooting convenience store clerks going forward, and b) bringing justice to this particular killer. His crime, similar to Penn State and Sandusky's, is one in which true restitution is impossible. It's great if the NCAA punishment helps other people in some way, and it will be fantastic if it leads to meaningful reform and soul-searching within the Penn State community. But there should be a real punishment, too. The crime was too serious.

I can't agree with your first point. Based on what we know of the consent decree, it appears that there will be $12 million/year less to go around for non-athletic programs. By failing to specify that the fine come from football and explicitly prohibiting cuts in other sports, the NCAA might not have required, but they certainly encouraged PSU to cut non-athletic programs.

I largely agree with your 3rd point and wish Emmert and company would have framed their decision in terms of punishment rather than all of the self-serving and ineffectual talk about culture change.

[blazindw]

I can't agree with your first point. Based on what we know of the consent decree, it appears that there will be $12 million/year less to go around for non-athletic programs. By failing to specify that the fine come from football and explicitly prohibiting cuts in other sports, the NCAA might not have required, but they certainly encouraged PSU to cut non-athletic programs.

Mark Emmert said during the press conference that the money was to come from the football program and that it could not come out of any general academic fund or another sport's budget. So, it is football money. There's the higher argument that football revenues affect other sports' funding and academic funding in some way and that lesser football revenues hurt everything else that those revenues would benefit. But, I'm assuming the NCAA will probably want to see some sort of accounting that dictates all the sports maintaining their funding and that the football expenditures include the $12M fine each year (or, in the alternative, that they can't find $12M in cuts elsewhere to offset the loss of revenue in football).

[mph]

Mark Emmert said during the press conference that the money was to come from the football program and that it could not come out of any general academic fund or another sport's budget. So, it is football money. There's the higher argument that football revenues affect other sports' funding and academic funding in some way and that lesser football revenues hurt everything else that those revenues would benefit. But, I'm assuming the NCAA will probably want to see some sort of accounting that dictates all the sports maintaining their funding and that the football expenditures include the $12M fine each year (or, in the alternative, that they can't find $12M in cuts elsewhere to offset the loss of revenue in football).

I listened the the press conference and didn't hear him say the money had to come from football. I'll admit I might have missed something but I recall him arguing that university funds are fungible and don't have a firewall between academic and non-academic funds.

Anyway, here's the language from the consent decree. It explicitly protects athletic programs, but doesn't mention protecting academic or operational funds.


$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program, to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2012 into an endowment for programs preventing child sexual abuse and/or assisting the victims of child sexual abuse. The minimum annual payment will be $12 million until the $60 million is paid. The proceeds of this fine may not be used to fund programs at the University. No current sponsored athletic team may be reduced or eliminated in order to fund this fine.

[blazindw]

I listened the the press conference and didn't hear him say the money had to come from football. I'll admit I might have missed something but I recall him arguing that university funds are fungible and don't have a firewall between academic and non-academic funds.

Anyway, here's the language from the consent decree. It explicitly protects athletic programs, but doesn't mention protecting academic or operational funds.

I think it was in an answer to a question...not sure of the context or when in the presser it came (it was long and I was listening to the main parts and then fading back and forth during the Q&A). You are right in that there is no clear line between academic funds and non-academic funds, as for many schools they are linked (excess of athletic funds gets pushed over to academics, especially for scholarship/financial aid money)

[flyingdutchdevil]

Jderf, thanks for sticking to your guns in this discussion. Though I disagree with your position, it is a very reasonable one, and your defense of it has been edifying. A few things:

1) Let's recall that Penn State is not being punished. The Penn State football program is being punished. No loss of academic funding; no punishment of students; no loss of faculty. Penn State football will be less competitive for a while. That's it.

If you want to destroy an academic institution, they we probably should punish professors and students. However, I couldn't disagree more. Punishing Penn State football is punishing Penn State. If Duke basketball is being punished, that will affect that whole school. I hate to say it, but the majority of Duke athletics and a hefty part of the students' social lives (and alumni, as DBR clearly shows) revolves around Duke basketball. By punishing Penn State football, you are punishing Penn State. Also, Penn State has cleaned up a lot of the guilty parties. I'm sure that they understand that the football culture has permeated every aspect of management and are putting roadblocks in place to make sure this never happens again. Punishing students and professors - who aren't guilty parties but many think are guilty by association - will accomplish nothing. It will help to ruin Penn State as an institution and make it a completely undesirable place for students to go to.

[mkirsh]

If you want to destroy an academic institution, they we probably should punish professors and students. However, I couldn't disagree more. Punishing Penn State football is punishing Penn State. If Duke basketball is being punished, that will affect that whole school. I hate to say it, but the majority of Duke athletics and a hefty part of the students' social lives (and alumni, as DBR clearly shows) revolves around Duke basketball. By punishing Penn State football, you are punishing Penn State. Also, Penn State has cleaned up a lot of the guilty parties. I'm sure that they understand that the football culture has permeated every aspect of management and are putting roadblocks in place to make sure this never happens again. Punishing students and professors - who aren't guilty parties but many think are guilty by association - will accomplish nothing. It will help to ruin Penn State as an institution and make it a completely undesirable place for students to go to.

I think you could use this argument if the NCAA imposed the death penalty, but the NCAA has not removed Penn State football. It will still exist, and the collateral parties (vendors who work the stadium, students, fans, etc) will still have football games to see on Saturday, the may just lose a few more of them than they have historically. Yes it may be less enjoyable than winning and going to a bowl game, but it's strange to think of those as entitlements that are being removed (forgive me if your post was meant sarcastically, hard to tell on a message board).

For what's worth, "famed" Duke alumn John Feinstein was on a radio show here in DC this AM, and called the NCAA cowards for not suspending the program. Said they should have just paid the vendors, stadium workers, etc to minimize the collateral damage but felt very strongly that Penn State should not play football this year. Never let it be said that JF doesn't have strong opinions.

[flyingdutchdevil]

I think you could use this argument if the NCAA imposed the death penalty, but the NCAA has not removed Penn State football. It will still exist, and the collateral parties (vendors who work the stadium, students, fans, etc) will still have football games to see on Saturday, the may just lose a few more of them than they have historically. Yes it may be less enjoyable than winning and going to a bowl game, but it's strange to think of those as entitlements that are being removed (forgive me if your post was meant sarcastically, hard to tell on a message board).

For what's worth, "famed" Duke alumn John Feinstein was on a radio show here in DC this AM, and called the NCAA cowards for not suspending the program. Said they should have just paid the vendors, stadium workers, etc to minimize the collateral damage but felt very strongly that Penn State should not play football this year. Never let it be said that JF doesn't have strong opinions.

Great post (FYI - wasn't being sarcastic and completely understand that boards are terrible for sarcasm). I do agree that the NCAA were cowards, that the penalty didn't match the crime, and that the institution that started this mess (football) should get suspended. I also completely agree that a death penalty for a few years would have been ideal. But the worst thing possible would be for the school to act as a deterrent for faculty and students. I think everyone, from NCAA to the board at PSU to the media, needs to think about the faculty and students when it comes to punishment. Under the current penalties, will faculty and students be harmed? Probably not. If there was a death penalty, would faculty and students be harmed? I don't know. I'd like to think that students wouldn't transfer or not attend PSU because of this, but I have no idea.

On a side note, I am extremely worried that PSU is going to spend even more money on football in the next few years for positive marketing, money that should be going to academics. If this is the case, then I am all against this penalty. Academics should never, ever be cut to foster athletics, and that includes Duke basketball.

[sagegrouse]

I'm from the "Bombardier Theory" of penalties: let the bombs fall on the target and ignore the collateral damage.

Lessee.... The Penn State AD, Head Football Coach and VP for Campus Security conspired to hide the criminal activities of a former defensive coordinator at Penn State athletic facilities. Because of this, the convicted child abuser was able to continue his criminal activities for ten more years.

The NCAA levied close to a maximum penalty on Penn State. And some of us are supposedly worried about "collateral damage" to the University, academics, student life, and so forth and so on? Yeah, and murderers' families often suffer when a murderer is sent to jail or to the gallows. We should let Penn State worry about how to pay the fine and overcome a few football losses. (I'll bet its record for the next five years is better than Duke's for the last five years.)

Also, I don't worry about academics being taxed to pay the football fine. Actually, I hope they try it 'cuz the profs will raise holy hell.

Also, I read that the University's insurer is (predictably) trying to wash its hands of the legal liability from the civil suits, saying it was not notified of factors affecting the "risk rating" of Penn State. The civil penalties could be a lot more than $60 million.

sagegrouse

[Reilly]

... Lessee.... The Penn State ... Head Football Coach ... conspired to hide the criminal activities ...

Read this alternative characterization of Paterno's actions (that is, not that he conspired, but that he possibly did exactly what he should have done). Not sure I buy the argument, but pass it on as food for thought:

http://www.volokh.com/2012/07/26/ncaa-to-the-taxpayers-of-pennsylvania-drop-dead/

[OldPhiKap]

Maybe we need Yossarian?

I don't know SnowdensCold's position on this, but must be time to join in.

[Jderf]

Jderf, thanks for sticking to your guns in this discussion. Though I disagree with your position, it is a very reasonable one, and your defense of it has been edifying.

Hey, it's not often someone thanks me for being argumentative. :) To be honest, this seems like the kind of debate where neither side has any hope of convincing the other. But if, in the end, both sides come out of it having more subtle, nuanced opinions, it can't be all bad, right?


1) Let's recall that Penn State is not being punished. The Penn State football program is being punished. No loss of academic funding; no punishment of students; no loss of faculty. Penn State football will be less competitive for a while. That's it.

A bit of an understatement, but nonetheless, do you really think that's not a punishment? I can tell you that if the NCAA had done something like that to Duke while I was a student, I would have been absolutely devastated. I've been a fan since before I can remember, and one of the few reasons I ever even made any effort in high school was in the hope that I'd someday get to stand in the bleachers in Cameron. I have no doubt that many PSU students feel very much robbed of a part of their college experience.


2) You may argue that the coverup was the behavior of individuals and not an institution, but, I'm sorry, the coach, the AD, the university president, never mind the (more understandable) complicity of an assistant coach, some janitors, and god knows who else? That is Penn State football. If the entire top of the management pyramid for PSU football does not act for the program, who or what does? Would we have to learn that it was part of spring practice for players, between Oklahoma drill and wind sprints, to hold down 11-year-olds and shout Jerry encouragement?

In a strict legal sense, they certainly represent the university, and I have no problem with the idea of Sandusky's victims seeking compensation. The organization as a whole utterly failed those children, and they obviously deserve every penny they get.

But, in a strict moral sense, I believe the product on the field is an entirely separate entity. The student-athletes bore absolutely no connection to those crimes and had no idea what was going on nearby while they were grinding it out for their school. Now, they're suddenly faced with the decision of either transferring (and uprooting all their friendships, college relationships, and connections to the area) or playing without the prospect of a post-season (and anybody here who has ever competed in a sport knows it's all about the post-season). Doesn't that seem kind of off?


3) For me, the biggest reason that I accept the heavy punishment handed down by the NCAA is that, in covering up a terrible crime, Penn State football committed a similarly terrible crime, and that should be punished.

(...)

It's great if the NCAA punishment helps other people in some way, and it will be fantastic if it leads to meaningful reform and soul-searching within the Penn State community. But there should be a real punishment, too. The crime was too serious.

But the people responsible already are being punished, aren't they? Sandusky is never going to see the outside of a prison (although really, anything seems to good for him). Curley and Schultz are facing grand jury perjury charges, as well as charges of failure to report suspected child abuse, and I hope they are prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Paterno has since passed away, and his legacy is all but crumbled -- not much more to be said there, although if he were still alive, I'm sure he would have also faced criminal charges. Who is left to punish? The players and the rest of the staff who were mere bystanders to the whole mess?

It seems to me that our court system is perfectly capable of meting out the necessary justice in this situation, and since there was no actual NCAA violation (unless if you adhere to an extremely strong interpretation of a vague morality clause), I just don't see where the NCAA comes into play.

I understand that allowing Paterno to hold on to the wins record seems cosmically unjust, considering the awful way in which he earned it, so I'm actually fine with the vacating of wins. The $60 million dollar endowment also seems unproblematic, and would have been just as productive as a decision taken by the university of their own accord (which, I admit, may or may not have happened without the NCAA).

But the combination of a 4-year post-season ban, reduction of scholarships, and the granting of immediate transfer eligibility to the entire team seems to serve no purpose other than to cripple the football team itself. At best, it is misdirected. At worst, vindictive.

Some people have pointed out that the innocent are sometimes harmed when we try to punish the guilty in situations like this, and that this collateral damage is unfortunate but necessary. I agree that, in situations where the guilty cannot be extricated from the innocent, this is true. But in this case, the guilty already have been extricated from the organization. They already are facing their day in court. So, from my perspective, The NCAA's involvement only serves to satisfy the revenge-lust of those who just see the words "Penn State" and attribute guilt by association, thereby giving the NCAA a rare, opportunistic moment of positive press.

(I'm not accusing you, or any posters here, of suffering from "revenge-lust," as your opinions are obviously very nuanced and well-formulated. But that is my impression of most casual observers, who haven't sat down and wasted as much of their time thinking about this as we have. :))

[Mal]

A bit of an understatement, but nonetheless, do you really think that's not a punishment? I can tell you that if the NCAA had done something like that to Duke while I was a student, I would have been absolutely devastated. I've been a fan since before I can remember, and one of the few reasons I ever even made any effort in high school was in the hope that I'd someday get to stand in the bleachers in Cameron. I have no doubt that many PSU students feel very much robbed of a part of their college experience.

No, it's not really a punishment. Not every defeat of expectation or inconvenience is a punishment. The NCAA is not at fault for any individual student or alumni's sense of entitlement to a 9-3 football team every year. They're not fining the students or making them sit out classes or do community service.

It's clear that your assumption that many Penn State students feel robbed is correct, given the responses of many of them that we've seen. Let's complete that circle, though: you've got a University Trustee telling the world that this NCAA action has "ruined the university" and thousands of students venting all over the internet that suffering a losing football team for their tenure there is nullifying the entirety of their college experience. That would indicate that, to a large number of people associated with the school, the success of the football team is their number one concern regarding Penn State University. When your Board of Trustees and student population makeup is loaded with such people, and the identity of the school has melded with the football program, is it any wonder that decisionmaking at the institutional level can get skewed toward protecting the football program at the expense of other, more appropriate, priorities?

I know that's easy to say, as someone in their late '30's who no longer gets too up or down about sports teams, and had Duke basketball been taken away or crippled while I was an undergrad, I would have had a strong feeling of injustice out of a sense of entitlement. No doubt. But that doesn't mean my sense of entitlement would have been justified. A system in which students are basing the decision of which institution of higher learning to attend primarily on the success of a football or basketball team is, well, a little off, don't we think? For me, Duke was fantastic school first, beautiful campus with great weather second, seemingly really nice/cool students third, and basketball powerhouse was just the frosting on the cake. I mean, does the Duke Class of 1998 get a refund because they didn't get to have a team in the Final Four while they were there, and they had to "suffer" through the '95 season with K out? No. They still got to go to Cameron and root for a team if they chose to do so, and could rally around school spirit. Penn State students have the same option for the next however many years, while attending a pretty good school at a great price if they're in-staters. If that's not enough, or they chose to go to Penn State instead of Penn because of football, then their priorities are out of whack enough that I don't feel much sympathy for them.

[throatybeard]

If Duke basketball is being punished, that will affect that whole school. I hate to say it, but the majority of Duke athletics and a hefty part of the students' social lives (and alumni, as DBR clearly shows) revolves around Duke basketball. By punishing Penn State football, you are punishing Penn State.

Did you miss the part of the winter when everyone was complaining to high heaven about how few Undergraduates show up to Duke MBB games?

[Bluedog]

If Duke basketball is being punished, that will affect that whole school. I hate to say it, but the majority of Duke athletics and a hefty part of the students' social lives (and alumni, as DBR clearly shows) revolves around Duke basketball.


Did you miss the part of the winter when everyone was complaining to high heaven about how few Undergraduates show up to Duke MBB games?

haha, yeah...Even if at full capacity, only 1/4 of the undergrads can even fit in the student section. EVERY student goes to Penn State football, although admittedly there are only like 6 home games on Saturdays as opposed to 15+ Duke basketball home games on all days, so it's certainly easier to attend a football game. But, having experienced Michigan football (which I assume is similar to Penn State) and Duke basketball, Michigan football is certainly a must attend event and ingrained in the culture more than Duke basketball. (Although I personally find Duke basketball games more exciting to watch.)

DBR posters are not the norm at Duke - we are definitely a small subset. It seems like most Duke students now don't care all that much about basketball honestly (much to my surprise although there certainly is a decent number that are very passionate and hardcore all year long) until the tournament.

[roywhite]

haha, yeah...Even if at full capacity, only 1/4 of the undergrads can even fit in the student section. EVERY student goes to Penn State football, although admittedly there are only like 6 home games on Saturdays as opposed to 15+ Duke basketball home games on all days, so it's certainly easier to attend a football game. But, having experienced Michigan football (which I assume is similar to Penn State) and Duke basketball, Michigan football is certainly a must attend event and ingrained in the culture more than Duke basketball. (Although I personally find Duke basketball games more exciting to watch.)

DBR posters are not the norm at Duke - we are definitely a small subset. It seems like most Duke students now don't care all that much about basketball honestly (much to my surprise although there certainly is a decent number that are very passionate and hardcore all year long) until the tournament.

huh? 44,000 student enrollment at University Park, and student football attendance is generally around 15,000 per game, sometimes as much as 21,000.

[allenmurray]

Lessee.... The Penn State AD, Head Football Coach and VP for Campus Security conspired to hide the criminal activities of a former defensive coordinator at Penn State athletic facilities. Because of this, the convicted child abuser was able to continue his criminal activities for ten more years.

The NCAA levied close to a maximum penalty on Penn State. And some of us are supposedly worried about "collateral damage" to the University, academics, student life, and so forth and so on? Yeah, and murderers' families often suffer when a murderer is sent to jail or to the gallows. We should let Penn State worry about how to pay the fine and overcome a few football losses. (I'll bet its record for the next five years is better than Duke's for the last five years.)

sagegrouse

Very well stated, though I've come to expect no less.

[Bluedog]

huh? 44,000 student enrollment at University Park, and student football attendance is generally around 15,000 per game, sometimes as much as 21,000.

Ok, I stand corrected. My mistake for jumping to conclusions. I guess it would be pretty impossible for all Penn State students to go when there are so many of them. Now that I think about it, they might not even be guaranteed tickets and I find it doubtful that they're free like they are for Duke students. So perhaps I should have said the vast majority take part in pre football festivities. ;) In any event, sorry for the misstatement and for getting sidetracked.

[roywhite]

Report: Freeh source criticizes NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions)


According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, a person connected to the Freeh report, which condemned Penn State's handling of Sandusky's abuse, said the NCAA should not have based its harsh sanctions against the university on the investigation...

"The sanctions against Penn State were really overwhelming, and no one imagined the report being used to do that," the person told The Chronicle. "People thought it would help others draw conclusions about what happened and provide a guide for leaders to be able to identify minefields and navigate through them.

"Instead, Emmert took the report and used Penn State's own resources to do them in. The institution is made of people, too. And they don't deserve this."

[formerdukeathlete]

Report: Freeh source criticizes NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions)

What a load of nonsense. I would assert the reason why we don't have a lot of players from over the years, or even coaches, object publicly, on the record, to the NCAA's actions is that they knew "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" for a very long time.

[mph]

Report: Freeh source criticizes NCAA (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8207795/report-freeh-report-source-criticizes-ncaa-penalties-penn-state-nittany-lions)

I suspect Freeh is trying to protect his business model. I doubt other schools will be lining up to pay him to produce reports that could provide the basis for NCAA sanctions.

[greybeard]

What a load of nonsense. I would assert the reason why we don't have a lot of players from over the years, or even coaches, object publicly, on the record, to the NCAA's actions is that they knew "something is rotten in the state of Denmark" for a very long time.

Wow, that's some assumption. The NCAA has been about building big-time football revenues, and has succeeded beyond anyone's imagination, we are talking mega bucks, which have been and the Chairman of the NCAA intends will continue to be ever increasing. The coffers runnith over, and the NCAA gets more than a little taste. The draconian measures heeped on the Penn State football program to all but destroy it can only be understood as an effort to keep the spickets open, to preempt those who would organize to force Corporate sponsors to withdraw, to diminish TV and Cable revenues, their pound of flesh to satiate their call for blood.

The NCAA Chairman's explanation for these draconian penalties--to insure it won't happen again, in any big time program, to diminish the power that the coaches of such programs wield over decision-making by their higher ups, by a school's chief administrators--anybody buying that. Not even those who are praising the imposition of those penalties to the roof. Like the prosecution of Michael Vick did anything to stop dog fighting? People are understandably outraged about what happened at Penn State, but those responsible have had the heavens fall on their heads. Not enough for some, for some the outrage knows no bounds--burn the infidels, torture them for their sins, so no one will follow. That one worked.

I'm not mad at anyone who holds such views. It's a free country, But, as the Bard put it, "Okay, I've had enough, what else can you show me."

[crimsonandblue]

Wow, that's some assumption. The NCAA has been about building big-time football revenues, and has succeeded beyond anyone's imagination, we are talking mega bucks, which have been and the Chairman of the NCAA intends will continue to be ever increasing. The coffers runnith over, and the NCAA gets more than a little taste. The draconian measures heeped on the Penn State football program to all but destroy it can only be understood as an effort to keep the spickets open, to preempt those who would organize to force Corporate sponsors to withdraw, to diminish TV and Cable revenues, their pound of flesh to satiate their call for blood.

The NCAA Chairman's explanation for these draconian penalties--to insure it won't happen again, in any big time program, to diminish the power that the coaches of such programs wield over decision-making by their higher ups, by a school's chief administrators--anybody buying that. Not even those who are praising the imposition of those penalties to the roof. Like the prosecution of Michael Vick did anything to stop dog fighting? People are understandably outraged about what happened at Penn State, but those responsible have had the heavens fall on their heads. Not enough for some, for some the outrage knows no bounds--burn the infidels, torture them for their sins, so no one will follow. That one worked.

I'm not mad at anyone who holds such views. It's a free country, But, as the Bard put it, "Okay, I've had enough, what else can you show me."

The NCAA organizational coffers don't run over from football. The NCAA gets its money almost entirely from either the basketball tournament or championship ticket sales (mostly basketball again). It's the conferences and individual schools that rake in money from college football.

There may be some deterrent effect from the penalties. I think primarily it was an equity, fairness, and respectability issue for the NCAA. In light of what came out in the Freeh report, could anyone stomach Penn State football marching out unscathed? 100,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened? Wouldn't the NCAA look toothless? The most heinous sports scandal of all time and Penn State keeps roaring on?

I think the NCAA couldn't fathom that.

[formerdukeathlete]

.............The draconian measures heeped on the Penn State football program to all but destroy it can only be understood as an effort to keep the spickets open, to preempt those who would organize to force Corporate sponsors to withdraw, to diminish TV and Cable revenues, their pound of flesh to satiate their call for blood.

....... People are understandably outraged about what happened at Penn State, but those responsible have had the heavens fall on their heads. Not enough for some, for some the outrage knows no bounds--burn the infidels, torture them for their sins, so no one will follow.......

The gist of your post is that the penalties imposed by the NCAA are too severe and that the NCAA's motives were to protect, preserve their income stream or the income streams available to member institutions relating to Football. I dont buy the severity argument; Sandusky is the only one in jail so far. I think it was more than about the money. What Penn State allowed to go on was so egregious that it threatens the integrity of college sports as currently structured.

At any point in time, whether in the 70s, 80s, 90s, had it become public that Sandusky was raping boys in the Penn State locker room, Penn State Football would have been derailed - then, perhaps no 1982 and 1986 national championships, and no invitation to join the Big 10 conference. The longer the Sandusky behavior went on, the greater the damage would become in it becoming known publicly. Getting rid of Sandusky would have been a hit, as well. But, Paterno was finally ready to take that hit by early 1998. - after, the national championships, and after becoming nicely ensconced in the Big 10. I think that by 1998 Paterno had thoughts about his own retirement. He did not know when, but he knew by then that his replacement could not be Jerry Sandusky.

In 2001, Paterno had the ability to get rid of the AD and the SVP (maybe even the President of the University) were they not to go along with him on how he wanted to handle things. In the sense that the individuals had to go along with Paterno, one can feel a bit badly about the predicaments of Curley and Schultz as they await trial. But, such pressure did not excuse the perjury years later. On the other hand, Paterno was still alive and still the Penn State coach at the time. They were in this thing together, and will deserve whatever punishment they receive as a result of their trials. I would imagine if Curley and Schultz express remorse for what was allowed to go on, and that, regrettably, they were pressured to do what they did, that this might be taken into consideration in the sentencing process.

[roywhite]

The gist of your post is that the penalties imposed by the NCAA are too severe and that the NCAA's motives were to protect, preserve their income stream or the income streams available to member institutions relating to Football. I dont buy the severity argument; Sandusky is the only one in jail so far. I think it was more than about the money. What Penn State allowed to go on was so egregious that it threatens the integrity of college sports as currently structured.

At any point in time, whether in the 70s, 80s, 90s, had it become public that Sandusky was raping boys in the Penn State locker room, Penn State Football would have been derailed - then, perhaps no 1982 and 1986 national championships, and no invitation to join the Big 10 conference. The longer the Sandusky behavior went on, the greater the damage would become in it becoming known publicly. Getting rid of Sandusky would have been a hit, as well. But, Paterno was finally ready to take that hit by early 1998. - after, the national championships, and after becoming nicely ensconced in the Big 10. I think that by 1998 Paterno had thoughts about his own retirement. He did not know when, but he knew by then that his replacement could not be Jerry Sandusky.

In 2001, Paterno had the ability to get rid of the AD and the SVP (maybe even the President of the University) were they not to go along with him on how he wanted to handle things. In the sense that the individuals had to go along with Paterno, one can feel a bit badly about the predicaments of Curley and Schultz as they await trial. But, such pressure did not excuse the perjury years later. On the other hand, Paterno was still alive and still the Penn State coach at the time. They were in this thing together, and will deserve whatever punishment they receive as a result of their trials. I would imagine if Curley and Schultz express remorse for what was allowed to go on, and that, regrettably, they were pressured to do what they did, that this might be taken into consideration in the sentencing process.


Oh, please. The more hyperbole, the better?

Do you have the slightest evidence for this narrative?

Let's try this....if there were indeed a large number of boys molested by Sandusky on the Penn State premises going back as far as the 1970's and 1980's, wouldn't we see at least some of them come forward? This is never an easy process for a survivor of molestation, but surely we would see some brave individuals come out with these stories? In addition to the publicity of the overall case, there is now a very large financial incentive for them to do so, in the form of Penn State's expressed interest in settling any and all claims at this point. Yet, have we seen even one from the 1970's or 1980's come forward?

If you want to continue with your claims, please provide some evidence.

[Duvall]

Let's try this....if there were indeed a large number of boys molested by Sandusky on the Penn State premises going back as far as the 1970's and 1980's, wouldn't we see at least some of them come forward? This is never an easy process for a survivor of molestation, but surely we would see some brave individuals come out with these stories? In addition to the publicity of the overall case, there is now a very large financial incentive for them to do so, in the form of Penn State's expressed interest in settling any and all claims at this point. Yet, have we seen even one from the 1970's or 1980's come forward?

Yes. (http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-16/justice/justice_pennsylvania-sandusky-probe_1_jerry-sandusky-harrisburg-patriot-news-grand-jury)

[formerdukeathlete]

Oh, please. The more hyperbole, the better?

Do you have the slightest evidence for this narrative?

Let's try this....if there were indeed a large number of boys molested by Sandusky on the Penn State premises going back as far as the 1970's and 1980's, wouldn't we see at least some of them come forward? This is never an easy process for a survivor of molestation, but surely we would see some brave individuals come out with these stories? In addition to the publicity of the overall case, there is now a very large financial incentive for them to do so, in the form of Penn State's expressed interest in settling any and all claims at this point. Yet, have we seen even one from the 1970's or 1980's come forward?

If you want to continue with your claims, please provide some evidence.

Or, before suggesting this is hyperbole, how about you doing a little google search beforehand?

Paterno begin the process of forcing out Sandusky even before the 1998 shower incident reported to the police, you've got that, right? And, it was not because of the competition.

[roywhite]

Or, before suggesting this is hyperbole, how about you doing a little google search beforehand?

Paterno begin the process of forcing out Sandusky even before the 1998 shower incident reported to the police, you've got that, right? And, it was not because of the competition.

Yeah, Paterno made it clear to Sandusky that Sandusky was not in line to be the next head coach at Penn State. Even the Freeh Report notes that these discussions happened before a 1998 showering incident.

Among the reasons for that were:
Joe had no intention of stepping down anytime soon
He felt Jerry devoted a lot of time to the Second Mile charity instead of total commitment to Penn State football

[Jarhead]

Wow, this thread is still progressing along with a bunch of folks doing the alibi thing for Penn State, its institutional failures, and the cover up. There is no way the penalties on Penn State would be too harsh given the facts in this case. So why don't we just quit making alibis for the bag guys? Does anyone really think Sandusky was wrongly convicted? That conviction just about creates a prima facie against Penn State. The NCAA gave them a break, but it was all they could do, under the circumstances.

[tommy]

In light of what came out in the Freeh report, could anyone stomach Penn State football marching out unscathed? 100,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened? Wouldn't the NCAA look toothless? The most heinous sports scandal of all time and Penn State keeps roaring on?

I think the NCAA couldn't fathom that.

Well Penn State won't keep roaring on in terms of their record on the field for awhile, but rest assured that there will certainly be 1000,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened. Other than the monstrosity of the crimes themselves and the evil inherent in the coverup, the fact that the Penn State faithful will be filling up the stadium for their football Saturdays regardless of the crimes and other sins committed by these people is what sickens me the most, and is a big reason why I wanted to see the death penalty. These people aren't going to "get it." For them, the band plays on . . .

[formerdukeathlete]

Yeah, Paterno made it clear to Sandusky that Sandusky was not in line to be the next head coach at Penn State. Even the Freeh Report notes that these discussions happened before a 1998 showering incident.

Among the reasons for that were:
Joe had no intention of stepping down anytime soon
He felt Jerry devoted a lot of time to the Second Mile charity instead of total commitment to Penn State football

You are getting a little closer. It was more like to Sandusky, "you need to make a choice between boys in showers and being a coach at Penn State, because what you are doing now is incompatible with being a coach at Penn State." It is my take that Paterno knew Sandusky would not give up the charity and the boys. He knew the choice he suggested, the demand he made would lead to force Sandusky to retire.

By the 90s Sandusky had ushered in many boys through the Penn State showers; he had taken along many boys to away games and bowl games, all the while the wife slept in a different hotel room. You think people around Sandusky did not notice this going on for more than 2 decades before 1998? You think Paterno was stupid? Paterno may not have been particularly interested in who was sleeping with whom in hotel rooms while traveling. But, Joe was a very smart man, with a keen intellect, and he was street smart.

I do believe that even more vicitms are surfacing, dating well back into the 80s and 70s. This I base on some contacts in the PA Bar, including in the town and county where Sandusky was tried.

Have you seen, btw, an aerial photo of where Sandusky's current home is situated? It backs right up to the playgrounds of an elementary school in State College. State College is a small town. You think folks have not known this about Sandusky for a long time?

[flyingdutchdevil]

Did you miss the part of the winter when everyone was complaining to high heaven about how few Undergraduates show up to Duke MBB games?

Doesn't this happen ever year? Basketball still reigns king as the single sport to watch (I'm sorry, but football never falls into the conversation. Duke may be doing everything right, but they're not getting student buy-in just yet) and students watch a lot more games on TV than they do in person. Is it sad? A little. But going to games in Cameron a) are exhausting and take up to 5 hours for a game against a "not-so-good" mid-major (1 hour to line-up, 1.5 hours inside, 2 hours for the game, 0.5 hours to get home) and b) watching on TV is so much easier.

Would I ever watch a game on TV rather than go to the game? Now? Absolutely not. As a graduate student at Duke, I go to every game I have tickets for. But I was also an undergrad at the same university 6 years ago and completely understand the mentality described above. It's a classic example of you-don't-know-what-you-have-until-you-don't-have-it

[Ichabod Drain]

Well Penn State won't keep roaring on in terms of their record on the field for awhile, but rest assured that there will certainly be 1000,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened. Other than the monstrosity of the crimes themselves and the evil inherent in the coverup, the fact that the Penn State faithful will be filling up the stadium for their football Saturdays regardless of the crimes and other sins committed by these people is what sickens me the most, and is a big reason why I wanted to see the death penalty. These people aren't going to "get it." For them, the band plays on . . .

And what would you expect their fans to do? They won't be cheering for Sandusky, they won't be cheering for sex offenders.They'll be cheering for their team, hoping to get back to some form of normalcy... someday down the road.

[killerleft]

Well Penn State won't keep roaring on in terms of their record on the field for awhile, but rest assured that there will certainly be 1000,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened. Other than the monstrosity of the crimes themselves and the evil inherent in the coverup, the fact that the Penn State faithful will be filling up the stadium for their football Saturdays regardless of the crimes and other sins committed by these people is what sickens me the most, and is a big reason why I wanted to see the death penalty. These people aren't going to "get it." For them, the band plays on . . .

It's getting a little old to keep hearing that "these people" don't "get it". "These people" were not charged with any crime, nor should their state of mind have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. Too bad you feel sick about it, but I surely hope the penalties aren't rigged to make sure that the rank and file Penn State fans are thoroughly chastised. Maybe you can go up to Pennsylvania and give 'em all a crick in the neck so their heads will point down.

They have to abide by the penalties Penn State gets. Expecting them to agree with all of it, part of it, or any of it is really, really immaterial. How does it matter, and why do you care? Aren't they collateral damage in all of this?

[Chicago 1995]

It's getting a little old to keep hearing that "these people" don't "get it". "These people" were not charged with any crime, nor should their state of mind have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. Too bad you feel sick about it, but I surely hope the penalties aren't rigged to make sure that the rank and file Penn State fans are thoroughly chastised. Maybe you can go up to Pennsylvania and give 'em all a crick in the neck so their heads will point down.

They have to abide by the penalties Penn State gets. Expecting them to agree with all of it, part of it, or any of it is really, really immaterial. How does it matter, and why do you care? Aren't they collateral damage in all of this?

They are collateral damage if you think the problem was simply limited to five people -- Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa -- and the terrible choice the last four made with regard to the crimes of the first.

They aren't collateral damage if you think that the culture of football at Penn State played a significant role in why Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa made the choices they did with regard to Sandusky's crimes.

We've tread the argument thoroughly too. There's still more of split between those two camps than I imagined possible at this point.

[mph]

Well Penn State won't keep roaring on in terms of their record on the field for awhile, but rest assured that there will certainly be 1000,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened. Other than the monstrosity of the crimes themselves and the evil inherent in the coverup, the fact that the Penn State faithful will be filling up the stadium for their football Saturdays regardless of the crimes and other sins committed by these people is what sickens me the most, and is a big reason why I wanted to see the death penalty. These people aren't going to "get it." For them, the band plays on . . .

I'm less certain about the effect this will have on attendance. Attendance was dropping before the scandal, from a high of around 110K two years ago to 100k last year, so that doesn't bode well for a 7 or 8 loss PSU team. My guess is that attendance will be high the first few games and perhaps much of next season, but after the "we'll show the NCAA" motivation fades, I think there could be a sharp drop. State College and the immediately surrounding counties aren't large enough to fill the stadium so attendance depends on fans' willingness to travel from longer distances. If I had to bet, I think less of those folks will be buying season tickets and making the trip.

[bob blue devil]

They aren't collateral damage if you think that the culture of football at Penn State played a significant role in why Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa made the choices they did with regard to Sandusky's crimes.


fantastic job focusing this debate.

i'll admit, i don't have an up close perspective of psu culture, but i am a bit skeptical of the argument that the culture was different at psu vs most other bcs schools in a way that played a significant role in the choices of those men. in fact, the culture has some poignant similarities to duke in basketball - obvious single unifying element of campus, face of the university to outsiders that don't have connections with the university, holier than thou perception, deified long-standing head coach, etc. were these the elements of the culture that caused the problems or were there others? i think the choices made were about the perpetrators more than psu being an outlier in terms of culture.

I did use a bit of sleight of hand in my prior comments - i do think that there is a culture problem at psu, but i think it's sufficiently similar at most bcs schools. combine big-time bcs culture with morally bankrupt leadership, and we get all sorts of scandals. how it wound up materializing at psu was particularly grotesque, but would these 4 have acted differently faced with the same situation at a different big-time bcs school? i do not. do you think another big time school smells them out as bad apples and doesn't hire them? i do not.

could someone change my mind on this? yes. the whole Vicky Triponey issue causes me to pause about psu's culture and think maybe they were an outlier, but then i think butch davis probably had the power to do the same thing (w.r.t. triponey, i'm not making a comment about how davis would've handled the sandasky issue) at unc given what we've seen there.

[A-Tex Devil]

f
could someone change my mind on this? yes. the whole Vicky Triponey issue causes me to pause about psu's culture and think maybe they were an outlier, but then i think butch davis probably had the power to do the same thing (w.r.t. triponey, i'm not making a comment about how davis would've handled the sandasky issue) at unc given what we've seen there.

I think it is hard to ignore the insularity of State College, combined with the "Paterno effect". As I mentioned upthread, it's a unique situation there that really doesn't compare even to Duke when you consider the geography of Duke's campus, both physically and socially. Additionally, as has been put elsewhere, the adults (meaning not the athletic department or the cult of personality coach) actually do run the show at Duke.

This, again, isn't to say that "Sandusky" couldn't happen anywhere else. That would be obtuse on my part. All schools are at risk to all scandals. Hell, look at what is happening at UNC (where every new aspect of the academic scandal is immediately and widely disseminated, for what it's worth). But I also think were far fewer checks and balances in State College -- whether it was local press, isolated geography, academia, the power of the university (both academia and the athletic department) vis a vis the football coach, or all of it.

I'll give an example -- people knew enough as early as April 2011 (http://www.timesonline.com/columnists/sports/mark_madden/madden-sandusky-a-state-secret/article_863d3c82-5e6f-11e0-9ae5-001a4bcf6878.html) that Jerry Sandusky was potentially going to come under indictment - enough to publish, at least. (if you haven't already, read the article and check the date on the byline). Nothing came of it. Sandusky had access to PSU facilities as late as the day before the indictments were dropped in November. Curley and Schultz knew they were being investigated as well, and I assume knew what they were being investigated for, and they didn't do anything about it. If FREEP reports this at Michigan, any number of papers in Texas with respect to UT or A&M, or an Atlanta, Nashville or Birmingham paper about any SEC school, there is no way, imo, this is ignored for 7 months.

[gumbomoop]

There's still more of split between those two camps than I imagined possible at this point.

I'm surprised about this, too. It is an emotional issue for all of us, because of the nature of the crimes, so that ups the disagreement-ante several-fold.

But maybe I should not be surprised. Sometimes in discussions, especially emotionally charged ones [which, come to think of it, may include most "discussions"], it's useful to talk about what we agree about, perhaps at both the beginning and end of a talking point, since the rest of the talking point may well come down to a hard disagreement. In fact, in my experience, which is more or less average, in the back and forth, each person focuses almost exclusively on points of disagreement, to which the opposing person responds in kind. In this way, we irritate each other pretty consistently, and when the several issues, although differing in gravity, understandably and appropriately have such a strong hold on us, the conversation is unlikely to draw us together, and much more likely to push us apart.

[Wander]

Wow, this thread is still progressing along with a bunch of folks doing the alibi thing for Penn State, its institutional failures, and the cover up. There is no way the penalties on Penn State would be too harsh given the facts in this case.

I think most of the people doing this are Penn State or Paterno fans in some way. I'm a little conflicted about A-Tex Devil's assertion that Penn State's geographical isolation and lack of a rival are significant factors in what happened here, in comparison to a hypothetical situation at another university like Duke. It's an interesting thought. But here's what I'm absolutely sure of: if, god forbid, something like this were to happen at Duke, there would plenty of Duke fans defending Coach K in much the same way there are lots of Penn State fans defending Paterno. Maybe a lower percentage (I like to think we're a relatively rational group overall), but definitely well above zero.

I don't really disagree with you; I don't see any justification for defending Paterno, especially since, in my mind, he had no business coaching college football for the past decade anyway, even without this scandal. I guess I'm just saying I sort of sympathize with Penn State fans (at least the non-rioting ones), as I imagine I'd be really disheartened in their shoes, and I don't find it surprising that good and intelligent people are grasping at irrational or irrelevant arguments to try and defend their football program.

[sagegrouse]

Well Penn State won't keep roaring on in terms of their record on the field for awhile, but rest assured that there will certainly be 1000,000+ strong cheering on in Happy Valley as if nothing happened. Other than the monstrosity of the crimes themselves and the evil inherent in the coverup, the fact that the Penn State faithful will be filling up the stadium for their football Saturdays regardless of the crimes and other sins committed by these people is what sickens me the most, and is a big reason why I wanted to see the death penalty. These people aren't going to "get it." For them, the band plays on . . .


And what would you expect their fans to do? They won't be cheering for Sandusky, they won't be cheering for sex offenders.They'll be cheering for their team, hoping to get back to some form of normalcy... someday down the road.


It's getting a little old to keep hearing that "these people" don't "get it". "These people" were not charged with any crime, nor should their state of mind have any bearing on the situation whatsoever. Too bad you feel sick about it, but I surely hope the penalties aren't rigged to make sure that the rank and file Penn State fans are thoroughly chastised. Maybe you can go up to Pennsylvania and give 'em all a crick in the neck so their heads will point down.

They have to abide by the penalties Penn State gets. Expecting them to agree with all of it, part of it, or any of it is really, really immaterial. How does it matter, and why do you care? Aren't they collateral damage in all of this?


They are collateral damage if you think the problem was simply limited to five people -- Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa -- and the terrible choice the last four made with regard to the crimes of the first.

They aren't collateral damage if you think that the culture of football at Penn State played a significant role in why Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa made the choices they did with regard to Sandusky's crimes.

We've tread the argument thoroughly too. There's still more of split between those two camps than I imagined possible at this point.


I'm surprised about this, too. It is an emotional issue for all of us, because of the nature of the crimes, so that ups the disagreement-ante several-fold.

But maybe I should not be surprised. Sometimes in discussions, especially emotionally charged ones [which, come to think of it, may include most "discussions"], it's useful to talk about what we agree about, perhaps at both the beginning and end of a talking point, since the rest of the talking point may well come down to a hard disagreement. In fact, in my experience, which is more or less average, in the back and forth, each person focuses almost exclusively on points of disagreement, to which the opposing person responds in kind. In this way, we irritate each other pretty consistently, and when the several issues, although differing in gravity, understandably and appropriately have such a strong hold on us, the conversation is unlikely to draw us together, and much more likely to push us apart.

I am from the school of "seldom right, but never in doubt." So, let me address the main questions of the Penn State debacle:

1. Did Penn State deserve punishment from the NCAA?

The Penn State AD, Head Football Coach, VP of Campus Security and maybe the President of the University conspired to hide the crimes that occurred In penn State athletic facilities and committed by a former defensive coordinator. As one result, the now-convicted sexual predator was allowed to continue his predations for another decade.

The NCAA has ample power to issue penalties under the general wording of its rules. The fact there is no clear precedent is a measure of how the events are so extraordinarily vile. The NCAA's target was quite properly the Penn State football program because of Paterno's involvement, Sandusky's heritage with the program, and the fact that the crimes occurred in the football locker rooms. Moreover, Sandusky used his ties to Penn State to find new victims.

2. Was the intent of the NCAA to punish the university and its fans or was this merely collateral damage?

I don't think it matters. I earlier espoused the "Bombardier Principle:" hit the target and ignore any collateral damage. As I said, a court rarely considers the family circumstances of a murderer on the way to the gallows.

It is the burden of Penn State to deal with the financial and athletic penalties and their aftermath and consequences.

3. Was the NCAA seeking to punish Penn State itself for letting the football coach have to much power?

Only indirectly. The punishment was justified and, in fact, punsihes Penn State and its fans. I don't think that was the main purpose of the NCAA penalties, except for the following question:

4. Was the NCAA sending a message to all member schools of the dangers of letting an athletic program rule the unversity roost?

Hell, yes!

5. Were the penalties a public relations move on the part of the NCAA?

Yes, but not necessarily in a bad way:

(1) The penalties were announced within 100 hours of the release of the Freeh Report. When, if ever, has the NCAA acted with such alacrity? I mean, look at the dawdling after the academically disgraceful violations at UNC.

(2) Having an unfettered, perhaps even unbeaten, Penn State football program rising to the top in the wake of such crimes would have been a complete disaster for the NCAA and a huge black mark for college sports.

(3) Swift and severe action also keeps the federal government and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania out of the NCAA's knickers. And, BTW it also helps Penn State in the same way: Imagine a bill with a "Notwithstanding any other provision of law" clause that deletes all federal funding for Penn State University.

Just a few ideas...

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

I am from the school of "seldom right, but never in doubt." So, let me address the main questions of the Penn State debacle:

1. Did Penn State deserve punishment from the NCAA?

The Penn State AD, Head Football Coach, VP of Campus Security and maybe the President of the University conspired to hide the crimes that occurred In penn State athletic facilities and committed by a former defensive coordinator. As one result, the now-convicted sexual predator was allowed to continue his predations for another decade.

sagegrouse

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and especially those that would theoretically last 10 or more years and involve the coordinated silence of many people.

How many adults COULD have stopped Jerry Sandusky over the years?

Dottie Sandusky
Mike McQueary
Mike McQueary's dad (to whom he told about what he saw that very night)
Dr. Dranov (family doctor friend of the McQueary's who also heard the story that very night)
Joe Paterno
Tim Curley
Gary Schultz
Graham Spanier
Jack Raykovitz (the CEO of the Second Mile charity)
The Penn State janitor who claimed to have witnessed an assault
PA Governor Corbett
Members of the PSU Board of Trustees who also sat on the Second Mile board and made donations
Some parties to the 1998 investigation

Are we saying that all these people agreed to stay silent? Acutally conspired to hide the truth?
Or is it more likely that they made mistakes and didn't do enough?
Didn't know precisely what they were dealing with, and rationalized their responses? Were not aware of additional assaults and went on about their lives?

If that first premise is not accurate, or not proven, how can other assumptions be made.

Due process is an issue here

[Chicago 1995]

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and especially those that would theoretically last 10 or more years and involve the coordinated silence of many people.

How many adults COULD have stopped Jerry Sandusky over the years?

Dottie Sandusky
Mike McQueary
Mike McQueary's dad (to whom he told about what he saw that very night)
Dr. Dranov (family doctor friend of the McQueary's who also heard the story that very night)
Joe Paterno
Tim Curley
Gary Schultz
Graham Spanier
Jack Raykovitz (the CEO of the Second Mile charity)
The Penn State janitor who claimed to have witnessed an assault
PA Governor Corbett
Members of the PSU Board of Trustees who also sat on the Second Mile board and made donations
Some parties to the 1998 investigation

Are we saying that all these people agreed to stay silent? Acutally conspired to hide the truth?
Or is it more likely that they made mistakes and didn't do enough?
Didn't know precisely what they were dealing with, and rationalized their responses? Were not aware of additional assaults and went on about their lives?

If that first premise is not accurate, or not proven, how can other assumptions be made.

Due process is an issue here

It's pretty clear that JoePa, Curley and Schultz acted in concert and chose not to report Sandusky. Conspiracy might be a loaded term that you don't like, but it doesn't change what they did.

Further, just because people who weren't part of the group acting in concert -- like Dottie Sandusky, Janitors in the FB program or Tom Corbett -- also could have reported Sandusky and didn't -- all for their own reasons -- doesn't mean that there wasn't a smaller group working together to protect themselves, JoePa and Penn State football.

Due process is an issue? Penn State didn't agree, adopting the Freeh Report (and a whole bunch of admissions against interest) and submitting to the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Kind of guts the whole due process argument in my mind.

The denial, I think, you present in this post (and have throughout this thread) is symptomatic of way, way too much of the PSU community, and only serves to reinforce the idea that the NCAA went to light on PSU. The whole enterprise would be better served if it were simply divorced from football.

[sagegrouse]

Sorry, I don't buy the conspiracy theory.

I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, and especially those that would theoretically last 10 or more years and involve the coordinated silence of many people.

How many adults COULD have stopped Jerry Sandusky over the years?



Roy-- I didn't say "10 or more years." It was a "conspiracy" in that in 2001 several people knew of the accusation against Sandusky (an eyewitness report), talked among themselves, and did not report the crime. In this case, it all took place within a few days. Moreover, these were three people at the very top of the Penn State hierarchy. You can insist on "alleged conspiracy" if you want, but the Freeh Report is pretty definitive.

Furthermore, and a major consideration if not a crime itself, if Sandusky had been reported, his string of sexual assaults against boys would have come to a complete and immediate stop. It went on ten years more.

Also, I meant to add a sixth question:

6. Is Joe Paterno guilty of a crime?

No. Dead men can't be tried and can't be convicted.

sagegrouse

[flyingdutchdevil]

Also, I meant to add a sixth question:

6. Is Joe Paterno guilty of a crime?

No. Dead men can't be tried and can't be convicted.

sagegrouse

I understand the legal jargon, but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously dead men cannot be tried and hence not convicted but, in less of a legal way, they are indeed "guilty" in the eyes of the public. Hundreds of men in history have died before they were tried, but that hasn't stopped historians, the media, and the public from labeling them as "guilty".

[Bojangles4Eva]

So I'll throw in my 2c being a resident of State College and student of Penn State....

The football program got what it deserved, and should consider themselves lucky it was not worse. It is unfortunate for the players because they really did not have anything to do with this, but the program needed to be severely punished for its lack of control and judgment. These views I share are pretty common with many who live in this area, and it’s mainly die hard ignorant fans (every fan base has them) and young impressionable kids who are complaining. Really, the atmosphere here was no different than where I did my undergrad at VA Tech, and just as fanatic as Duke or UNC BBall (I grew up in the triangle). I don’t think the culture is all that different from other schools with a big fan base, it’s just…bigger. Also, since there really is no reason to drive up to State College on a Saturday unless you are fly fishing or looking for Amish goods, the football program became a huge driving force in the local economy, which you can’t really blame anyone for. If anything I think that’s what most people here are concerned about regarding the ramifications of these sanctions. Obviously the primary concern within the community is in the atrocities that occurred on campus, and to be honest the state of the football program is really an afterthought in myself, and many of my friends/colleagues minds.

[sagegrouse]

I understand the legal jargon, but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously dead men cannot be tried and hence not convicted but, in less of a legal way, they are indeed "guilty" in the eyes of the public. Hundreds of men in history have died before they were tried, but that hasn't stopped historians, the media, and the public from labeling them as "guilty".

Thanks for the compliment re "jargon:" I'm an economist.

Also, thanks for your post. There are people on this thread and many others around the country that will maintain that there is not sufficient evidence for a conviction. Saying he can't be convicted because he's dead ends the hair-splitting. Fact is, his legacy has been destroyed; his university is subject to severe penalties because of his actions or lack of actions, and his family's wealth and well-being is under severe stress. An actual criminal trial is largely irrelevant.

sagegrouse
'I don't hate JoePa. I recognize he did lot of good for his players and his school that, while being unraveled, has not been totally erased'

[roywhite]

Thanks for the compliment re "jargon:" I'm an economist.

Also, thanks for your post. There are people on this thread and many others around the country that will maintain that there is not sufficient evidence for a conviction. Saying he can't be convicted because he's dead ends the hair-splitting. Fact is, his legacy has been destroyed; his university is subject to severe penalties because of his actions or lack of actions, and his family's wealth and well-being is under severe stress. An actual criminal trial is largely irrelevant.

sagegrouse
'I don't hate JoePa. I recognize he did lot of good for his players and his school that, while being unraveled, has not been totally erased'

Thank goodness you mentioned that you don't hate JoePa. Otherwise, I'd wonder why you continue to focus on him.

An Alternative To The Standard Media Narrative On Joe Paterno (http://www.thesportsnotebook.com/2012/07/an-alternative-to-the-standard-media-narrative-on-joe-paterno-penn-state/)


Let’s begin by establishing that the mainstream media narrative is designed to ensure Paterno is seen as the villain. We’ve been given a storyline that says he was fully aware that Sandusky was abusing children, did nothing about it, and the inaction was because he wanted to avoid bad publicity for the football program. The men who wrote the Freeh Report promulgate this interpretation. If it’s true then, yes, Paterno is a villain and contrary to the lame defenses of some close to him, it would indeed wipe away the good things he accomplished. High graduation rates may be laudable, but are insignificant next to knowingly harboring a child abuser.

But what if the mainstream media narrative isn’t true?

[Newton_14]

So I'll throw in my 2c being a resident of State College and student of Penn State....

The football program got what it deserved, and should consider themselves lucky it was not worse. It is unfortunate for the players because they really did not have anything to do with this, but the program needed to be severely punished for its lack of control and judgment. These views I share are pretty common with many who live in this area, and it’s mainly die hard ignorant fans (every fan base has them) and young impressionable kids who are complaining. Really, the atmosphere here was no different than where I did my undergrad at VA Tech, and just as fanatic as Duke or UNC BBall (I grew up in the triangle). I don’t think the culture is all that different from other schools with a big fan base, it’s just…bigger. Also, since there really is no reason to drive up to State College on a Saturday unless you are fly fishing or looking for Amish goods, the football program became a huge driving force in the local economy, which you can’t really blame anyone for. If anything I think that’s what most people here are concerned about regarding the ramifications of these sanctions. Obviously the primary concern within the community is in the atrocities that occurred on campus, and to be honest the state of the football program is really an afterthought in myself, and many of my friends/colleagues minds.

Thanks for your post, and perspective. I only take hard issue with the word "ignorant". There are many Penn Staters (Like RoyWhite whom I have great respect for, but just happen to disagee amicably on this scandal) who are far from ignorant. I feel that comment unfair. Or that implication rather. Like Gumbomop and others have stated, issues like this bring out tons of emotion that affect judgement. While I am squarely in the camp of the Freeh Report and NCAA on this, I have no ill feelings toward anyone attempting to defend either Paterno or Penn St, nor do I feel they are ignorant. I get their position. Disagree with it, but get it.

It would take a ton of in your face undisputable facts, for me not to defend K in a situation like this. I do believe I would be rational enough to face and swallow the truth were it K in this type of scandal, but due to my staunch belief in the character of Michael Krzyzewski, I would have to be convinced. The Freeh Report convinced me on this one. It was thorough. Should it be found flawed at a later date, I would reconsider my position, but I do not expect that to happen here.

[SCMatt33]

I've seen some discussion here recently about the impact of the sanctions outside the football program, especially how the academic side and everyday fans get caught up as collateral damage. I think the only way that these groups could be punished is economically. The football team is still playing. The students and fans can still go to 6-7 games a year and watch the others on TV. They won't get a bowl game, but it's not likely they were missing out on a high-level BCS bowl. Penn State has only been to 2 BCS games in the 14 years of BCS play (coincidentally the same time frame as the vacated games). There is no divine right to a winning football team, so I don't see the football team's punishment really counting as a punishment against fans.

The possible legitimate way that others get caught up in it is the money. I don't know if the exact language stated otherwise, but Mark Emmert only mentioned that the money couldn't affect other sports. Where the NCAA money (as well as lawsuit money) comes from is a question that unfortunately won't be answered for years. While the lawsuits with victims are likely to be settled quickly, there will be years of litigation between Penn State and PMA insurance, who carries Penn State's general liability policy. Unsurprisingly, Penn State has already claimed that they are covered by the policy, and PMA has claimed that this situation isn't covered.

Hypothetically, if Penn State is responsible for paying everything, and it does affect the academic side, there will likely be some lag in seeing the tangible affects of it, maybe waiting to upgrade facilities, less ability to attract top researchers and faculty, etc. I just can't see how any individuals will be affected in the short term. The only exception would be less money from donations and less people coming to State College for games, but I don't think the NCAA should be blamed for a drop off in support.

I think in reality, Penn State will be hurt most in ways that have nothing to do with the NCAA's punishment. The bad press and reputation hit that Penn State takes from this will affect them from years to come. My sister just finished her freshman year in college and she had strongly considered going to Penn State, but ultimately decided against it. I can't tell you how relieved my parents are that she wasn't there. I imagine that many others will feel the same way. Attracting students is the lifeblood of a university in the same way that recruiting is the lifeblood of an athletic team. There will likely be a noticeable dip in applications that will take years to recover from. If it lasts long enough, it could have so many little intangible effects on the academic community. I can't even begin to guess exactly what the drop off in applications will be. For a quick example here is a chart of Duke's applications for the last 10 years. Notice the dip in 2007, while the lacrosse case was still open. Even after the whole truth was revealed, it still took a year or two for the application rate to catch up to where it had been tracking before the incident. The NCAA may take some money from Penn State, but the major damage done to the university community will be the fault of Sandusky and those who covered up his actions, not Mark Emmert and the NCAA.

2730

EDIT: I pieced together the Duke application numbers from press releases over the years. I'd say that most are +/- 250 applicants because I found some different numbers for the same year depending on how long the article was written after the applications were submitted

[bob blue devil]

I think it is hard to ignore the insularity of State College, combined with the "Paterno effect". As I mentioned upthread, it's a unique situation there that really doesn't compare even to Duke when you consider the geography of Duke's campus, both physically and socially.

would you say state college is meaningfully more insular than, say, most of the SEC west? i'm not convinced it is completely unique, but, again, i'm not within these locales.

[crimsonandblue]

Thank goodness you mentioned that you don't hate JoePa. Otherwise, I'd wonder why you continue to focus on him.

An Alternative To The Standard Media Narrative On Joe Paterno (http://www.thesportsnotebook.com/2012/07/an-alternative-to-the-standard-media-narrative-on-joe-paterno-penn-state/)

That link is pretty bad. I know it's just a fan's blog or something similar, but do you want to support the bolded items in the excerpt below?


Then in 2001 came the incident most people are familiar with and it’s when former quarterback Mike McQueary saw something with Sandusky and a child in the showers and reported it to Paterno. McQueary was vague enough in what he saw that this particular incident was one of the two that a Pennsylvania jury acquitted Sandusky on and the former quarterback’s story also changed in its re-telling. Nonetheless, Paterno reported the incident to Curley and Spanier and heard no more.

It’s here that Paterno committed an extremely stupid error and it’s that he heard about the incident on a Saturday morning and then reported it on Sunday night, so as not to “interfere with anyone’s weekend.” You can fairly say the coach did not grasp the seriousness of what had been reported to him, but does waiting 36 hours to make a phone call constitute evidence of a desire to avoid bad publicity, as the media narrative and Freeh Report insist. Or is it a sign that Paterno was just naïve about Sandusky and perhaps skeptical of McQueary? If the Board of Trustees can be given every benefit of the doubt in the Freeh Report, why can’t Paterno, particularly given the fact that naiveté about the accused is in fact far more likely.

So we have a timeline which establishes that the police communicate with the AD & president, that Sandusky has been acquitted once, that the source telling Paterno of another incident isn’t always reliable and that he still forwarded the report , albeit 36 hours later than he should have. If there’s evidence of a systematic conspiracy to choose a pedophile over bad publicity I’ve missed it.

Hasn't your link author basically missed the damning emails from the Freeh report? Did he miss Curley's email indicating that he'd spoken with Paterno and that as a result, he'd rethought things and wasn't comfortable going to the authorities? Isn't that a little more important than waiting 36 hours in the scheme of avoiding bad publicity? I also must have missed Sandusky's acquittal and evidence that McQueary was unreliable back when Paterno, Schultz and Spanier were weighing how to proceed with what McQueary told them.

That's three short paragraphs chock full of hopeful stretching and willful blindness. The rest of the "article" isn't much better.

Any case for Paterno's real absolution would need to rest on him being a doddering old man who had no clue what was being told him, had no business being involved, no capacity to follow through on the issue, and to the extent his AD, VP and President listened to him, they were the real idiots, because Paterno was suffering dementia or something similar. Because Paterno's own grand jury testimony is pretty bad for him and he did that to himself in eight minutes of testimony (admitting McQueary told him the 2001 incident was inappropriate behavior, of a sexual nature, with a child, and denying knowledge of any pre-2001 Sandusky incident, when the Freeh report emails from Curley again appear to indicate that Paterno was at least aware there was a potential issue).

[Des Esseintes]

Thank goodness you mentioned that you don't hate JoePa. Otherwise, I'd wonder why you continue to focus on him.


Back when the scandal broke, Paterno's defenders said, "Let us wait until all the facts are in. It is vicious to tear a man down before we know the details." Fine. But then the Freeh report comes out, and the exact same people say, "Why are you still talking about Joe Paterno? Haven't we kicked the man enough?" So can someone clue me in? When, exactly, was it okay to talk about Joe Paterno abetting child rape? Was I sneezing during that quarter-second?

[Chicago 1995]

Thank goodness you mentioned that you don't hate JoePa. Otherwise, I'd wonder why you continue to focus on him.

An Alternative To The Standard Media Narrative On Joe Paterno (http://www.thesportsnotebook.com/2012/07/an-alternative-to-the-standard-media-narrative-on-joe-paterno-penn-state/)


Let’s begin by establishing that the mainstream media narrative is designed to ensure Paterno is seen as the villain.


That's an interesting thought about the media narrative.

From my perspective, it seems that at least early, up to and through JoePa's death, the media bent over backwards to give JoePa the benefit of the doubt, made every inference in his favor, and generally treated him with the respect most believed he had earned to that point. Between his death and now, things changed, and the media narrative has gotten much more harsh in its tone and approach as to JoePa, although that's not to say there aren't somewhat outspoken defenders of JoePa still within the media. Millen and Blackledge, wtih PSU ties, not surprisingly have been ESPN's voices defending JoePa even after the Freeh Report. Joe Posnanski has not retracted his defense of JoePa from last December as his book on JoePa nears release. There are other examples, although those voices are outnumbered by those now critical of JoePa.

Simply chasing ratings? Well, it might have something to do with the pesky facts that have come forward too, which make JoePa's statements to the grand jury, the media and the public appear to be in important instances out and out lies. The narrative turned on (1) the e-mails between Curley, Spanier and Schultz where the course of action as to Sandusky and a choice was made to NOT report him after Curley talked to JoePa; and (2) the documents in the Freeh Report that show JoePa not only knew of the 1998 investigation, but was very interested in that investigation. Both are, giving JoePa the benefit of the doubt, tough to reconsile with his Grand Jury testimony and through a much more cynical lens, might have merited a perjury indictment along side Curley and Schultz -- and presumably Spanier before this is done.

Sally Jenkins does a better job explaining this than I do.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/colleges/joe-paterno-at-the-end-showed-more-interest-in-his-legacy-than-sanduskys-victims/2012/07/12/gJQAMUX9fW_story.html

Then there's this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/14/sports/ncaafootball/joe-paterno-got-richer-contract-amid-jerry-sandusky-inquiry.html?pagewanted=all

The narrative turned because it turns out that once the curtain was pulled back, saintly, venerated JoePa wasn't nearly as saintly as we thought.

[A-Tex Devil]

would you say state college is meaningfully more insular than, say, most of the SEC west? i'm not convinced it is completely unique, but, again, i'm not within these locales.

Not necessarily. But the SEC (especially the west) is so full of internecine sabotage (Albert Means recruitment) and attempted sabotage (Danny Sheridan and the Cecil Newton "bagman") that it's hard for me to imagine the Sandusky story *NOT* getting out. Arkansas is perhaps the most isolated of the SEC schools in that it is the only game in town, is in a (relatively) small town, and doesn't have any in-state rival. But then look at what happened to Bobby Petrino after the school's best season in decades - and that was self-imposed.

It's not just Penn State's insularity. It's the lack of checks and balances from the outside and within that I think helped keep the cover up going for as long as it did.

[dcdevil2009]

Hasn't your link author basically missed the damning emails from the Freeh report? Did he miss Curley's email indicating that he'd spoken with Paterno and that as a result, he'd rethought things and wasn't comfortable going to the authorities? Isn't that a little more important than waiting 36 hours in the scheme of avoiding bad publicity? I also must have missed Sandusky's acquittal and evidence that McQueary was unreliable back when Paterno, Schultz and Spanier were weighing how to proceed with what McQueary told them.

That's three short paragraphs chock full of hopeful stretching and willful blindness. The rest of the "article" isn't much better.

If you make every inference against Paterno, as the author admits, your post would be accurate, but that's not necessarily the case if you look at it with only what was known at the time of the '98 investigation and '01 reports. First, no one knows what exactly McQueary said to Paterno, Paterno said to Schultz and Curley, McQueary said to Schultz and Curley, and what Curley told Paterno about what McQueary told Curley. We know Curley met with Paterno after talking to McQueary, but we don't know what Curley told Paterno in that meeting. It's entirely plausible that Paterno got less than the graphic description of events thwt McQueary gave to the grand jury, and potentially Curley referring more to "horsing around" and other vagueness. In that version of the unknown Paterno-Curley conversation, Paterno should probably have been more thorough, but isn't the mastermind of a coverup that he appears.

[crimsonandblue]

If you make every inference against Paterno, as the author admits, your post would be accurate, but that's not necessarily the case if you look at it with only what was known at the time of the '98 investigation and '01 reports. First, no one knows what exactly McQueary said to Paterno, Paterno said to Schultz and Curley, McQueary said to Schultz and Curley, and what Curley told Paterno about what McQueary told Curley. We know Curley met with Paterno after talking to McQueary, but we don't know what Curley told Paterno in that meeting. It's entirely plausible that Paterno got less than the graphic description of events thwt McQueary gave to the grand jury, and potentially Curley referring more to "horsing around" and other vagueness. In that version of the unknown Paterno-Curley conversation, Paterno should probably have been more thorough, but isn't the mastermind of a coverup that he appears.

My post wasn't aimed at Paterno; it was aimed at the lame defense the link author put forth. The linked piece indicated that Paterno told Curley and Schultz of McQueary's report and never heard from them again. To believe that requires that you believe Curley was lying when he said he'd spoken with Paterno, and that Curley had therefore changed his tune on going to the authorities.

And it says the 36 hour delay is all that the media and Freeh report base the notion of a Paterno cover up and concern for bad publicity on. When there's clearly also the Curley email, the inconsistency with his grand jury testimony on knowing of the '98 incident, and his admission in his grand jury testimony that McQueary told him of inappropriate sexual behavior of Sandusky in the shower with a child (and yet, at best, he never followed up).

So, to get to an innocent Joe hypothetical, in my mind we have to believe that his grand jury testimony (85 and dying as he was) and his Sally Jenkins interview, both of which contained denials of knowing anything before 2001, were the product of either a failing condition, misremembrances, poor questioning or something like that. If he never gave his grand jury testimony or the Jenkins interview, we'd only have these attenuated references to talking to coach from the admins and we'd have no real idea what McQueary said, because he's admittedly been all over the place, it seems.

But, unfortunately for JoePa, we do have his grand jury testimony and his Jenkins interview. Maybe his seeming denials of knowledge of the '98 incident were due to his faulty memory. Or maybe if either the grand jury or Jenkins had pressed him, he'd have recalled the '98 incident as some nonsense he didn't consider comparable to the 2001 allegations. But it doesn't look good.

I don't think there's sufficient evidence in the Freeh report to support the Paterno cover up scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. But it's strong enough for me to have significant doubts about Paterno's honesty and significant doubts that he wasn't involved in a cover up. I can't pretend that I'd convict him of perjury, but depending on what Curley, Schultz and Spanier would say if forced to testify in a Paterno trial, I can certainly see getting to a conviction from the here of the Freeh report.

[formerdukeathlete]

........

I don't think there's sufficient evidence in the Freeh report to support the Paterno cover up scenario beyond a reasonable doubt. But it's strong enough for me to have significant doubts about Paterno's honesty and significant doubts that he wasn't involved in a cover up. I can't pretend that I'd convict him of perjury, but depending on what Curley, Schultz and Spanier would say if forced to testify in a Paterno trial, I can certainly see getting to a conviction from the here of the Freeh report.

The Freeh Report found was that Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno were well aware of the 1998 incident, that Paterno followed the developments of that investigation closely (Curley asked Schultz for updates on more than one occassion on behalf of Paterno), and that Schultz had a hand in directing the investigation of the 1998 incident by off-campus police and authorities. Emails were the primary source of this information, but so were Schultz's personal handwritten notes at the time. Schultz maintained a file on Sandusky which he attempted to conceal from Freeh's investigators (per p. 47 of the Freeh Report). In his notes in this file, Schultz worried whether the 1998 incident would open a Pandora's Box of other vicitms. Whose concerns was Schultz working to address at this point? - Paterno's it would seem. Would what the Freeh Report found, if presented in a court of law, along with testimony, be sufficient to support a conviction of Paterno for obstruction of justice? You might have needed testimony by Schultz (in return for a plea deal, perhaps) that Paterno told him to do what he could to quash the investigation.

In any event, it seems extremely clear that Paterno lied to the grand jury in saying that he did not know about the 1998 incident. I dont believe there is a suggestion that he suffered from alzheimer's.

[roywhite]

NCAA Statement on Syracuse from Nov. 2011 (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/ncaa_statement_on_the_syracuse.html?mobRedir=false )


"NCAA President Mark Emmert spoke (Monday) with Chancellor Nancy Cantor to let her know the NCAA is carefully monitoring the developments at Syracuse University, and Chancellor Cantor pledged her full cooperation in determining the facts. The accusations of child sexual abuse reported in the media involving a former assistant men's basketball coach are deeply troubling. Furthermore, to have similar allegations involving coaches at two of the nation's major universities saddens every member of the Association.

"As facts emerge, we will determine what actions may be necessary regarding NCAA bylaws. As always, criminal justice proceedings, if any, take precedence over any NCAA actions."



1. Did Emmert allow criminal justice proceedings to take precedence when he took actions vs Penn State?
Couldn't wait for pending trials regarding PSU administrators Curley and Schultz?

2. "Similar allegations"....presumably talking about Syracuse and Penn State here.
Will we be seeing NCAA involvement and penalties for Syracuse now?

3. Since we've seen the NCAA take action, will we see them take up other cases like Baylor and Dave Bliss or Notre Dame where the student was killed because he was sent up the video tower in high winds?
Both cases involved loss of life; are they not serious enough for this new-found power of punishment in cases not involving specific NCAA rule violations?

[Bluedog]

NCAA Statement on Syracuse from Nov. 2011 (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/ncaa_statement_on_the_syracuse.html?mobRedir=false )

I thought the criminal investigation of the Bernie Fine situation is done with the prosecutor not pursuing any charges because the statute of limitations is up. Am I incorrect? Are there still some pending criminal investigations going on at Syracuse?

I can't see the NCAA going back through history and following up previously completed criminal cases like at Baylor with their own judgments.

[roywhite]

I thought the criminal investigation of the Bernie Fine situation is done with the prosecutor not pursuing any charges because the statute of limitations is up. Am I incorrect? Are there still some pending criminal investigations going on at Syracuse?

I can't see the NCAA going back through history and following up previously completed criminal cases like at Baylor with their own judgments.

Yet the essence of the Penn State case goes back to 2001, and the NCAA chose to say it went back to 1998. That's okay, but the other cases get a pass?
The current Penn State players were in elementary school at the time.

[Bluedog]

Yet the essence of the Penn State case goes back to 2001, and the NCAA chose to say it went back to 1998. That's okay, but the other cases get a pass?
The current Penn State players were in elementary school at the time.

Well, the scandal started back in 1998, but investigators weren't aware of it until recently and the perpetrator in the case was just sentenced. I simply meant that I can't imagine the NCAA going back and imposing sanctions on a school for a case that concluded several years ago. At least, I think the Baylor case is done, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if there are incidents that occurred several years ago and the criminal investigation is still ongoing, then certainly the NCAA may step in.

[roywhite]

Well, the scandal started back in 1998, but investigators weren't aware of it until recently and the perpetrator in the case was just sentenced. I simply meant that I can't imagine the NCAA going back and imposing sanctions on a school for a case that concluded several years ago. At least, I think the Baylor case is done, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But if there are incidents that occurred several years ago and the criminal investigation is still ongoing, then certainly the NCAA may step in.

My main point was to question whether the NCAA has been or will be consistent in what has not been their traditional area of enforcement, or whether their intervention in the Penn State case did short-circuit their stated position iof allowing criminal proceedings to take precedence.

Since you make a point about the scandal starting in 1998, please explain why that is so. What should Penn State have done at that point when a criminal investigation into Sandusky produced no charges?

[devilsadvocate85]

My main point was to question whether the NCAA has been or will be consistent in what has not been their traditional area of enforcement, or whether their intervention in the Penn State case did short-circuit their stated position iof allowing criminal proceedings to take precedence.

Since you make a point about the scandal starting in 1998, please explain why that is so. What should Penn State have done at that point when a criminal investigation into Sandusky produced no charges?

The first step in a downward spiral with incalculable costs!

[Chicago 1995]

NCAA Statement on Syracuse from Nov. 2011 (http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/11/ncaa_statement_on_the_syracuse.html?mobRedir=false )

1. Did Emmert allow criminal justice proceedings to take precedence when he took actions vs Penn State?
Couldn't wait for pending trials regarding PSU administrators Curley and Schultz?

2. "Similar allegations"....presumably talking about Syracuse and Penn State here.
Will we be seeing NCAA involvement and penalties for Syracuse now?

3. Since we've seen the NCAA take action, will we see them take up other cases like Baylor and Dave Bliss or Notre Dame where the student was killed because he was sent up the video tower in high winds?
Both cases involved loss of life; are they not serious enough for this new-found power of punishment in cases not involving specific NCAA rule violations?

Similar allegation at Syracuse? Sure. Similar proof? Not so much. The NCAA did take action at Baylor -- something that's certainly in the ballpark to what PSU faced. Notre Dame? I think the bigger concern there is the Chicago Tribune investigation as to how sexual assault allegations are treated at ND, and if there's systemic preference given to athletes, I would sure as hell hope the NCAA would bomb them back to the stone age too.

That's not the part of this post that makes me react though, and I kind of feel like I shouldn't have even included that substantive response.

Here's what gets me:

Other people did it too. Other people did worse things! This is unfair!

Denial is awfully powerful.

You can try to minimize it all you want -- and there's no way to characterize this argument other than minimizing what PSU did -- but it doesn't change the fact that in the name of football and Joe Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not report a serial pedophile and allowed him to continue raping boys for 10 more years. It doesn't change the fact that Joe Paterno lied to the grand jury and to all of us about what he knew. It doesn't change the fact that JoePa's not the saint that Happy Valley wants him to be.

I know that roy doesn't speak for all of PSU, no more than Matt Millen, Todd Blackledge, Franco Harris, Michael Mauti do. No more than the hundreds who wanted one last picture with the JoePa statue. No more than allegedly 5000 those who have hired an attorney and sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to reconsider its sanction. This might be a vocal minority, but it's really vocal. Worse, there are a lot of people who are PSU fans who seem unwilling to accept the gravity of what happened at PSU. Unwilling to admit any more than the bare minimum of error or blame for its administration and its beloved football program. It's astonishing to me.

It's just a damn game. I would hope that if something like that happened here, the vocal majority wouldn't be doing everything they could to minimize the mistakes Duke made and shift blame, but instead would be asking how could basketball become so powerful, how could K become so important that our University would so grossly lose its way. If that dialogue is happening for PSU, it's being drowned out by those who are spending their time trying to read holes in the Freeh report, are trying to draw similarities between PSU and Syracuse or Baylor or UNC or even worse, are trying to save JoePa's reputation by arguing that the good he's done somehow excuses or balances the harm done here, or like roy did, arguing well, there are worse crimes than child rape. I mean no one died.

I admit that what happened at PSU could happen anyplace. It's happened in the Catholic Church, in Boy Scouts, in Little League, in junior hockey. Similar things happen in too many businesses where eyes are averted as rainmakers prey upon younger employees. I also admit that by and large, the culture of football at PSU isn't substantially different from basketball at Duke or UNC or Kansas or Kentucky or football at 'Bama or Florida or LSU or Texas, for example. I think JoePa's tenure at PSU and PSU's georgraphc isolation -- which is different from schools of the SEC west, for example, as others pondered in the thread -- make it somewhat unique, but not enough that there aren't fair comparisons to the culture.

But just because it could happen anywhere, and PSU's not that different from a host of other schools doesn't change the fact that it actually did happen at PSU. It's not a mitigating factor that it could have been anyone. It was actually Penn State. Boys were actually raped at Penn State by a current and then former football coach. On the grounds at PSU. On bowl trips with PSU. Those rapes were allowed to continue by PSU when they were faced with a SECOND allegation of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky, nothing was done. A more "humane" course was charted for the serial pedophile which wouldn't subject PSU, PSU Football and JoePa to any scrutiny.

And there are a LOT of people up in arms that anyone is punishing PSU. And that they are blaming JoePa for not doing more. Even if this can happen anywhere, it shouldn't happen anywhere twice -- and given the way too much (in my opinion) of the PSU community is acting, it absolutely could happen there again. Dammit, they need their football! It's not fair that our kids don't get bowl trips! Not fair we can't compete with Michigan and Wisconsin! I mean, the child rape has stopped at this point! Things were worse at Baylor! A coach at Syracuse is alleged to have done it too!

The funny thing is, I too think the NCAA screwed up. I just wish they'd done more.

[alteran]

Similar allegation at Syracuse? Sure. Similar proof? Not so much. The NCAA did take action at Baylor -- something that's certainly in the ballpark to what PSU faced. Notre Dame? I think the bigger concern there is the Chicago Tribune investigation as to how sexual assault allegations are treated at ND, and if there's systemic preference given to athletes, I would sure as hell hope the NCAA would bomb them back to the stone age too.

That's not the part of this post that makes me react though, and I kind of feel like I shouldn't have even included that substantive response.

Here's what gets me:

Other people did it too. Other people did worse things! This is unfair!

Denial is awfully powerful.

You can try to minimize it all you want -- and there's no way to characterize this argument other than minimizing what PSU did -- but it doesn't change the fact that in the name of football and Joe Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not report a serial pedophile and allowed him to continue raping boys for 10 more years. It doesn't change the fact that Joe Paterno lied to the grand jury and to all of us about what he knew. It doesn't change the fact that JoePa's not the saint that Happy Valley wants him to be.

I know that roy doesn't speak for all of PSU, no more than Matt Millen, Todd Blackledge, Franco Harris, Michael Mauti do. No more than the hundreds who wanted one last picture with the JoePa statue. No more than allegedly 5000 those who have hired an attorney and sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to reconsider its sanction. This might be a vocal minority, but it's really vocal. Worse, there are a lot of people who are PSU fans who seem unwilling to accept the gravity of what happened at PSU. Unwilling to admit any more than the bare minimum of error or blame for its administration and its beloved football program. It's astonishing to me.

It's just a damn game. I would hope that if something like that happened here, the vocal majority wouldn't be doing everything they could to minimize the mistakes Duke made and shift blame, but instead would be asking how could basketball become so powerful, how could K become so important that our University would so grossly lose its way. If that dialogue is happening for PSU, it's being drowned out by those who are spending their time trying to read holes in the Freeh report, are trying to draw similarities between PSU and Syracuse or Baylor or UNC or even worse, are trying to save JoePa's reputation by arguing that the good he's done somehow excuses or balances the harm done here, or like roy did, arguing well, there are worse crimes than child rape. I mean no one died.

I admit that what happened at PSU could happen anyplace. It's happened in the Catholic Church, in Boy Scouts, in Little League, in junior hockey. Similar things happen in too many businesses where eyes are averted as rainmakers prey upon younger employees. I also admit that by and large, the culture of football at PSU isn't substantially different from basketball at Duke or UNC or Kansas or Kentucky or football at 'Bama or Florida or LSU or Texas, for example. I think JoePa's tenure at PSU and PSU's georgraphc isolation -- which is different from schools of the SEC west, for example, as others pondered in the thread -- make it somewhat unique, but not enough that there aren't fair comparisons to the culture.

But just because it could happen anywhere, and PSU's not that different from a host of other schools doesn't change the fact that it actually did happen at PSU. It's not a mitigating factor that it could have been anyone. It was actually Penn State. Boys were actually raped at Penn State by a current and then former football coach. On the grounds at PSU. On bowl trips with PSU. Those rapes were allowed to continue by PSU when they were faced with a SECOND allegation of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky, nothing was done. A more "humane" course was charted for the serial pedophile which wouldn't subject PSU, PSU Football and JoePa to any scrutiny.

And there are a LOT of people up in arms that anyone is punishing PSU. And that they are blaming JoePa for not doing more. Even if this can happen anywhere, it shouldn't happen anywhere twice -- and given the way too much (in my opinion) of the PSU community is acting, it absolutely could happen there again. Dammit, they need their football! It's not fair that our kids don't get bowl trips! Not fair we can't compete with Michigan and Wisconsin! I mean, the child rape has stopped at this point! Things were worse at Baylor! A coach at Syracuse is alleged to have done it too!

The funny thing is, I too think the NCAA screwed up. I just wish they'd done more.

I wish I could shower you with pitchforks for this one.

[roywhite]

I assume all the experts weighing in with harsh comments towards Penn State have read the complete Freeh Report and have a good understanding of the NCAA's actions here?

[dcdevil2009]

You can try to minimize it all you want -- and there's no way to characterize this argument other than minimizing what PSU did -- but it doesn't change the fact that in the name of football and Joe Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not report a serial pedophile and allowed him to continue raping boys for 10 more years. It doesn't change the fact that Joe Paterno lied to the grand jury and to all of us about what he knew. It doesn't change the fact that JoePa's not the saint that Happy Valley wants him to be.

I know that roy doesn't speak for all of PSU, no more than Matt Millen, Todd Blackledge, Franco Harris, Michael Mauti do. No more than the hundreds who wanted one last picture with the JoePa statue. No more than allegedly 5000 those who have hired an attorney and sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to reconsider its sanction. This might be a vocal minority, but it's really vocal. Worse, there are a lot of people who are PSU fans who seem unwilling to accept the gravity of what happened at PSU. Unwilling to admit any more than the bare minimum of error or blame for its administration and its beloved football program. It's astonishing to me.

[...]

I admit that what happened at PSU could happen anyplace. It's happened in the Catholic Church, in Boy Scouts, in Little League, in junior hockey. Similar things happen in too many businesses where eyes are averted as rainmakers prey upon younger employees. I also admit that by and large, the culture of football at PSU isn't substantially different from basketball at Duke or UNC or Kansas or Kentucky or football at 'Bama or Florida or LSU or Texas, for example. I think JoePa's tenure at PSU and PSU's georgraphc isolation -- which is different from schools of the SEC west, for example, as others pondered in the thread -- make it somewhat unique, but not enough that there aren't fair comparisons to the culture.

But just because it could happen anywhere, and PSU's not that different from a host of other schools doesn't change the fact that it actually did happen at PSU. It's not a mitigating factor that it could have been anyone. It was actually Penn State. Boys were actually raped at Penn State by a current and then former football coach. On the grounds at PSU. On bowl trips with PSU. Those rapes were allowed to continue by PSU when they were faced with a SECOND allegation of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky, nothing was done. A more "humane" course was charted for the serial pedophile which wouldn't subject PSU, PSU Football and JoePa to any scrutiny.

Citizens United aside, I think a fundamental problem with the way the NCAA and the media have handled what happened at Penn State comes from attributing the human qualities of Penn State's leadership to Penn State as an organization, which doesn't actually possess human characteristics. In reality, Penn State is only what it's leaders make it; "Penn State Football" didn't cover anything up, Jerry Sandusky repeatedly raped children and Schlutz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno were at best willfully ignorant to what happened and at worst knew what was going on and allowed it to happen. This isn't BP where the decision makers who made the mistakes leading to a disaster are still in power. Instead, the other people who make up Penn State leadership, whom no one has alleged knew anything about what Sandusky was doing, replaced what appears to be the corrupt leadership that was running the organization.

Many people believe that "Penn State Football" deserved to be punished, contending that it needs to be taught a lesson, but the organization can't learn, just the people running it. Most of the people impacted by NCAA action, such as the fans, players, high school athletes can't act on behalf of Penn State and didn't do anything different than almost every college sports fan around. It's the flip side of your comment about pointing to other guilty parties who weren't punished as a justification for that guilty party not getting punished. Innocent parties were hurt by the punishment for that guilty party, so it doesn't matter if we punish innocents here too. For the people with the power to make decisions on behalf of Penn State, including the new coach, AD, and president, it's tough to say that they contributed to whatever culture Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier created, as they either weren't at Penn State or weren't in positions of power. Basically, punishing Penn State Football becomes more of a symbolic gesture that the NCAA won't stand for child abuse or dishonesty (as the NCAA shouldn't), but it isn't symbolic for the people being impacted by the punishment, who didn't know what was going on and didn't do anything that could be condemned without also condemning athletes and fans everywhere.

[formerdukeathlete]

My main point was to question whether the NCAA has been or will be consistent in what has not been their traditional area of enforcement, or whether their intervention in the Penn State case did short-circuit their stated position iof allowing criminal proceedings to take precedence.

Since you make a point about the scandal starting in 1998, please explain why that is so. What should Penn State have done at that point when a criminal investigation into Sandusky produced no charges?

I would suggest re-reading the Freeh Report, beginning page 47, Involvement of University Officials in the Sandusky Investigation. Based on his own notes and emails, Schultz had his hand in the investigation of the 1998 incident from day one in order to coax that the investigation would lead to what would be considered a non-criminal matter. Schultz had the head of campus police keep him informed of everything going on with the criminal investigation. To me, this means so that they could let Joe Paterno know. I think the implication in the Freeh Report is that the DA Office's decision not to prosecute may have been influenced by pressure brought to bear by Penn State.

What should Penn State have done? It should not have meddled in the investigation of the 1998 incident, among many other of it other transgressions.

[Chicago 1995]

Citizens United aside, I think a fundamental problem with the way the NCAA and the media have handled what happened at Penn State comes from attributing the human qualities of Penn State's leadership to Penn State as an organization, which doesn't actually possess human characteristics. In reality, Penn State is only what it's leaders make it; "Penn State Football" didn't cover anything up, Jerry Sandusky repeatedly raped children and Schlutz, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno were at best willfully ignorant to what happened and at worst knew what was going on and allowed it to happen. This isn't BP where the decision makers who made the mistakes leading to a disaster are still in power. Instead, the other people who make up Penn State leadership, whom no one has alleged knew anything about what Sandusky was doing, replaced what appears to be the corrupt leadership that was running the organization.

Many people believe that "Penn State Football" deserved to be punished, contending that it needs to be taught a lesson, but the organization can't learn, just the people running it. Most of the people impacted by NCAA action, such as the fans, players, high school athletes can't act on behalf of Penn State and didn't do anything different than almost every college sports fan around. It's the flip side of your comment about pointing to other guilty parties who weren't punished as a justification for that guilty party not getting punished. Innocent parties were hurt by the punishment for that guilty party, so it doesn't matter if we punish innocents here too. For the people with the power to make decisions on behalf of Penn State, including the new coach, AD, and president, it's tough to say that they contributed to whatever culture Paterno, Curley, Schultz and Spanier created, as they either weren't at Penn State or weren't in positions of power. Basically, punishing Penn State Football becomes more of a symbolic gesture that the NCAA won't stand for child abuse or dishonesty (as the NCAA shouldn't), but it isn't symbolic for the people being impacted by the punishment, who didn't know what was going on and didn't do anything that could be condemned without also condemning athletes and fans everywhere.

See Post 201.

http://www.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?28895-NCAA-drops-hammer-on-Penn-State&p=587372#post587372


They are collateral damage if you think the problem was simply limited to five people -- Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa -- and the terrible choice the last four made with regard to the crimes of the first.

They aren't collateral damage if you think that the culture of football at Penn State played a significant role in why Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa made the choices they did with regard to Sandusky's crimes.

[mgtr]

A lot of the recent posts highlight "untruths" spoken by JoePa and others in the last two years. Thats why I adopt the Barney Fife approach to problems -- "nip it in the bud!" When things drag on as long they did in this case, there is just a whole lot of CYA, and people lie like crazy. Not saying that I could do better, though.

[Jderf]

Other people did it too. Other people did worse things! This is unfair!

Denial is awfully powerful.

You can try to minimize it all you want -- and there's no way to characterize this argument other than minimizing what PSU did -- but it doesn't change the fact that in the name of football and Joe Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, Curley and Paterno did not report a serial pedophile and allowed him to continue raping boys for 10 more years. It doesn't change the fact that Joe Paterno lied to the grand jury and to all of us about what he knew. It doesn't change the fact that JoePa's not the saint that Happy Valley wants him to be.

I know that roy doesn't speak for all of PSU, no more than Matt Millen, Todd Blackledge, Franco Harris, Michael Mauti do. No more than the hundreds who wanted one last picture with the JoePa statue. No more than allegedly 5000 those who have hired an attorney and sent a letter to the NCAA asking it to reconsider its sanction. This might be a vocal minority, but it's really vocal. Worse, there are a lot of people who are PSU fans who seem unwilling to accept the gravity of what happened at PSU. Unwilling to admit any more than the bare minimum of error or blame for its administration and its beloved football program. It's astonishing to me.

It's just a damn game. I would hope that if something like that happened here, the vocal majority wouldn't be doing everything they could to minimize the mistakes Duke made and shift blame, but instead would be asking how could basketball become so powerful, how could K become so important that our University would so grossly lose its way. If that dialogue is happening for PSU, it's being drowned out by those who are spending their time trying to read holes in the Freeh report, are trying to draw similarities between PSU and Syracuse or Baylor or UNC or even worse, are trying to save JoePa's reputation by arguing that the good he's done somehow excuses or balances the harm done here, or like roy did, arguing well, there are worse crimes than child rape. I mean no one died.

I admit that what happened at PSU could happen anyplace. It's happened in the Catholic Church, in Boy Scouts, in Little League, in junior hockey. Similar things happen in too many businesses where eyes are averted as rainmakers prey upon younger employees. I also admit that by and large, the culture of football at PSU isn't substantially different from basketball at Duke or UNC or Kansas or Kentucky or football at 'Bama or Florida or LSU or Texas, for example. I think JoePa's tenure at PSU and PSU's georgraphc isolation -- which is different from schools of the SEC west, for example, as others pondered in the thread -- make it somewhat unique, but not enough that there aren't fair comparisons to the culture.

But just because it could happen anywhere, and PSU's not that different from a host of other schools doesn't change the fact that it actually did happen at PSU. It's not a mitigating factor that it could have been anyone. It was actually Penn State. Boys were actually raped at Penn State by a current and then former football coach. On the grounds at PSU. On bowl trips with PSU. Those rapes were allowed to continue by PSU when they were faced with a SECOND allegation of sexual abuse against Jerry Sandusky, nothing was done. A more "humane" course was charted for the serial pedophile which wouldn't subject PSU, PSU Football and JoePa to any scrutiny.

And there are a LOT of people up in arms that anyone is punishing PSU. And that they are blaming JoePa for not doing more. Even if this can happen anywhere, it shouldn't happen anywhere twice -- and given the way too much (in my opinion) of the PSU community is acting, it absolutely could happen there again. Dammit, they need their football! It's not fair that our kids don't get bowl trips! Not fair we can't compete with Michigan and Wisconsin! I mean, the child rape has stopped at this point! Things were worse at Baylor! A coach at Syracuse is alleged to have done it too!

Whoa, whoa, whoa. I step out of the thread for a few days and come back to a shouting match. :) There's some interesting points in here, for sure, but it's hard to hear them with the volume turned up so high. While exclamation points are fine for impassioned speeches, I don't really think they're conducive to rational discourse. Let's see what we can get out of this if we take things down a few notches:

(Before I get into this, I want to say for the record that I have absolutely no connection to PSU whatsoever. I don't even personally know a single alumnus or fan. Most of my exposure to this has been through DBR, ESPN, and a laborious reading of the Freeh Report. But I do nonetheless find this case incredibly fascinating, as well as incredibly disturbing in a surprising number of ways.)

(I'm going to take a closer look at your points regarding the NCAA sanctions, rather than the facts (and non-facts) of the criminal case and Freeh report -- which, while also interesting, would probably be best served if discussed in a separate thread, as both issues are fairly complicated in their own right.)

You acknowledge that some of the problems at PSU are specific to PSU (the repeated acts of a serial pedophile, for one, as well as the continual failure of those in power to report and put a stop to it) while other problems are common to most BCS schools in varying degrees, including Duke (the prioritization of sports, television, publicity and money over things like academics and the general community). You also say that the NCAA is wholly justified in punishing PSU for these problems.

My question here is this: Which problems are we punishing PSU for, exactly?

Now if we're going to legitimately punish the PSU system, I'd think it should be for a problem which is systemic at PSU. And the issue I have here is that the problem we're ostensibly punishing PSU for (that a revered assistant coach repeatedly molested children, while a handful of individuals failed to report it to the proper authorities) is not a systemic or institutional problem at all, but rather a crime involving a handful of people who were high-ranking members of that institution. Out of all the various students-athletes, student-volunteers, coaches, assistant coaches, members of the athletic department staff that comprise the "PSU football program" -- we're talking hundreds of people here, even if defined very narrowly to exclude the Board of Trustees, the boosters, the compliance department, the alumni organizations, etc. -- a grand total of four administrators were involved. In addition, these were criminal offences, for which the people responsible are being charged and facing trial. They were not NCAA violations, which PSU has in the past repeatedly shown the good faith of vigorously self-reporting, promptly and accurately. It seems to me that this is a case best handled by the United States Justice System and not the NCAA (or to be more accurate here, Mark Emmert). Unlike the previous case you cite, Baylor (where the subsequent investigation revealed systemic issues including improper payments and drug use among players), the Freeh Report, if anything, re-emphasized how the crimes were limited to those four people.

Now, if what we're actually punishing PSU for is the second, systemic problem -- the culture; the admixture of sports and academics -- there may actually be an argument. However, it isn't an argument against PSU, but against the whole of the BCS and the NCAA. For that problem, it would be ridiculous to punish and single out one school, especially if that one school had previously been exemplary in abiding by the rules and having stellar graduation rates. (That is, unless your organization actually wanted to distract the public from this endemic problem by taking cover behind positive press and the appearance of vigilance against an even more horrific problem in the eyes of the public.)


They are collateral damage if you think the problem was simply limited to five people -- Sandusky, Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa -- and the terrible choice the last four made with regard to the crimes of the first.

They aren't collateral damage if you think that the culture of football at Penn State played a significant role in why Spanier, Curley, Schultz and JoePa made the choices they did with regard to Sandusky's crimes.

Now, nobody is arguing that this culture didn't play a role in those crimes. That would be ridiculous, considering the facts of the case. Without that culture, Paterno et al would have never been in such a situation in the first place. But just because the culture provided the context for those crimes doesn't make that culture itself evil or worthy of punishment.

(Edit: I also want note that I don't think people who hold these positions and are from PSU are therefore in denial. Although, if you want to think that, it sure would make it easy to just sweep away any points they make.)

[Des Esseintes]

My main point was to question whether the NCAA has been or will be consistent in what has not been their traditional area of enforcement, or whether their intervention in the Penn State case did short-circuit their stated position iof allowing criminal proceedings to take precedence.

Since you make a point about the scandal starting in 1998, please explain why that is so. What should Penn State have done at that point when a criminal investigation into Sandusky produced no charges?

How about three years later not covering up the 2001 incident when an assistant coach reported that Sandusky was sodomizing a child in the shower? Just off the top of my head, that sounds like an awesome start.

You don't get it. Penn State is not being punished because Jerry Sandusky abused children. Penn State is being punished because a) Penn State created an environment so completely lacking oversight that Jerry Sandusky's crimes were made easier, and b) Penn State covered up the 2001 incident when it threatened to come to light. The second one is unconscionable. Of the other scandals you mention, none feature anything like what happened at Penn State. We all make mistakes, and at Notre Dame it was a bad one to send that kid up in the tower. But that was a single thoughtless mistake. The Penn State debacle is the product of literally thousands of days in which Paterno, Curley, Spanier, etc. saw ol' Jerr in the hallway and declined to contact the authorities, declined to even ban him from campus. Those thousands upon thousands of days of willful, self-interested inaction are why your team doesn't get to play in the Outback Bowl for a spell.

Moreover, it's particularly poor form for you to toss the Syracuse situation in here at this late date. Syracuse--based on all information we've seen--did things right. The school contacted authorities when the allegations were discovered, and in addition to the police investigation it conducted one of its own. A sex abuse scandal could happen anywhere, and a school should not automatically be hammered for having had a dangerous pathology in its midst. No, a school is on the hook for what it can control: the work environment and its response to the problem when it surfaces. Syracuse and Penn State could not be more different in this regard. You are constantly chiding others on this board for not caring to look into the details of the PSU investigation, yet it is clear you haven't spent five minutes looking over the Syracuse timeline.

[roywhite]

How about three years later not covering up the 2001 incident when an assistant coach reported that Sandusky was sodomizing a child in the shower? Just off the top of my head, that sounds like an awesome start. You don't get it. Penn State is not being punished because Jerry Sandusky abused children. Penn State is being punished because a) Penn State created an environment so completely lacking oversight that Jerry Sandusky's crimes were made easier, and b) Penn State covered up the 2001 incident when it threatened to come to light. The second one is unconscionable. Of the other scandals you mention, none feature anything like what happened at Penn State. We all make mistakes, and at Notre Dame it was a bad one to send that kid up in the tower. But that was a single thoughtless mistake. The Penn State debacle is the product of literally thousands of days in which Paterno, Curley, Spanier, etc. saw ol' Jerr in the hallway and declined to contact the authorities, declined to even ban him from campus. Those thousands upon thousands of days of willful, self-interested inaction are why your team doesn't get to play in the Outback Bowl for a spell.

Moreover, it's particularly poor form for you to toss the Syracuse situation in here at this late date. Syracuse--based on all information we've seen--did things right. The school contacted authorities when the allegations were discovered, and in addition to the police investigation it conducted one of its own. A sex abuse scandal could happen anywhere, and a school should not automatically be hammered for having had a dangerous pathology in its midst. No, a school is on the hook for what it can control: the work environment and its response to the problem when it surfaces. Syracuse and Penn State could not be more different in this regard. You are constantly chiding others on this board for not caring to look into the details of the PSU investigation, yet it is clear you haven't spent five minutes looking over the Syracuse timeline.

Please skip the personal attacks; "you don't get it", "particularly poor form", etc. I've followed this story closely, care about it, and am offering considered opinions.

I still don't understand what it is Penn State should have done, but didn't do in 1998 after an investigation of Sandusky produced no charges. This "14 year" mantra which has come from the NCAA, along with vacated wins going back to 1998, seems strange.

[Des Esseintes]

Please skip the personal attacks; "you don't get it", "particularly poor form", etc. I've followed this story closely, care about it, and am offering considered opinions.

I still don't understand what it is Penn State should have done, but didn't do in 1998 after an investigation of Sandusky produced no charges. This "14 year" mantra which has come from the NCAA, along with vacated wins going back to 1998, seems strange.

I know you've followed this story closely and care about it, which is why I would expect you above all people to look twice before tossing a grenade in the direction of other schools. Acting as though the Syracuse and Notre Dame situations are remotely comparable to Penn State's does not strike me as "considered."

But look, if you want to say that wins should only be vacated as far back as 2001, I can see the logic there. Penn State appears to have been in a difficult position back then. There is no defense for 2001, however, and Paterno and company's awareness of the '98 allegations is a big part of why 2001 has no defense. Nor is there a great deal more moral glory in abetting a child predator for 11 years versus 14 years. Some would say it "seems strange" to harp on the distinction.

[roywhite]

I know you've followed this story closely and care about it, which is why I would expect you above all people to look twice before tossing a grenade in the direction of other schools. Acting as though the Syracuse and Notre Dame situations are remotely comparable to Penn State's does not strike me as "considered."

But look, if you want to say that wins should only be vacated as far back as 2001, I can see the logic there. Penn State appears to have been in a difficult position back then. There is no defense for 2001, however, and Paterno and company's awareness of the '98 allegations is a big part of why 2001 has no defense. Nor is there a great deal more moral glory in abetting a child predator for 11 years versus 14 years. Some would say it "seems strange" to harp on the distinction.

And Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 accusations in general, and the degree of detail, is IMO still in question; the Freeh report makes a conclusion based on 2 ambiguous emails. Here is a case where testimony from Curley and Schultz is needed. Freeh didn't talk to them.

[Atlanta Duke]

And Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 accusations in general, and the degree of detail, is IMO still in question; the Freeh report makes a conclusion based on 2 ambiguous emails. Here is a case where testimony from Curley and Schultz is needed. Freeh didn't talk to them.

More accurately Freeh couldn't talk with them

You may never hear again from Curley and Schultz unless they want the excitement of testifying under oath at their trials. There is no way their attorneys were going to allow them to speak with Team Freeh.

[Chicago 1995]

And Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 accusations in general, and the degree of detail, is IMO still in question; the Freeh report makes a conclusion based on 2 ambiguous emails. Here is a case where testimony from Curley and Schultz is needed. Freeh didn't talk to them.

The first of the two e-mails is dated May 6, 1998.

The re-line is "Joe Paterno" and the text of the original e-mail is "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks."

Now I guess that could mean that he touched base with Paterno about any number of things, but the next e-mail in the chain reads "Will do. Since we talked tonight, I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday."

Given that context, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Curley meant anything other than that he'd been in contact with JoePa about Sandusky being investigated. I suppose JoePa might not have asked why his long time assistant was being investigated and interviewed by police, but that's even less reasonable to truly believe.

I think the second e-mail is even tougher to call ambiguous. The re line is "Jerry" and the text of the e-mail reads "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." What else could that mean? What else could Joe be talking about, and why would, if Joe was worried about Jerry's retirement package, Curley have forwarded the question to Schultz?

These e-mails are only ambiguous if there's a whole bunch of denial going on.

And then there is this. It's a small piece of the puzzle, but one I think is relevant. It will be written off as mere coincidence, if its even credited at all (or if there's a response) but from Esquire


But yes, even here, in Paterno's archives in Paterno's library, there are some things that raise questions.

According to the grand-jury indictment, the first time Jerry Sandusky was investigated on suspicions of sexual abuse was back in 1998. On May 13 and 19 of that year, detectives from the Penn State and municipal police departments hid in the home of the mother of an alleged victim and listened in on conversations she had with Sandusky, conversations in which Sandusky admitted that his genitals might have touched her son, and that he felt terrible about it, saying "I wish I were dead." Then, on June 1, they interviewed Sandusky in person. Shortly afterward, for unclear reasons, the case was dropped.

Would Joe Paterno have been told about that investigation? Would any Penn State police officers or administrators have informed Joe Paterno that they were investigating his heir apparent on suspicion of heinous crimes?

We don't know.

Paterno himself said he never knew about the 1998 investigation, and nobody has produced evidence contradicting him.


Chicago 1995 note: This was published prior to the release of the Freeh Report and the e-mails discussed above, hence the above statements which are now outdated

You won't find any such evidence in Paterno's archives.

You will, though, find something curious, and perhaps, depending on how you interpret it, troubling.

You will find, if you dig into his archives from 1998, that he was a very busy man — he wrote in one letter that he had "committed all my free time to" and was "really stretched" by the ongoing fundraising campaign. You will find that he was a very reliable man as well. When he planned to do something, he would do it. In fact, if you look at his agenda from 1998, you'll see that he almost always kept to his schedule, and that his only cancellations fall within a very narrow window of time.

The first cancellation is on May 15, two days after police listen in on Sandusky's half-confession to the mother of a young boy. That evening, Paterno cuts short a fundraising trip to Valley Forge, then cancels a four-day-long personal vacation he had been planning to take from May 16 to 19, to his summer home in Avalon, New Jersey. He resumes his scheduled fundraising trips in June, about a week after the investigation against Sandusky is dropped. He doesn't miss any more events for the remainder of the year.


Read more: http://www.esquire.com/features/joe-paterno-0612-4#ixzz22K2Rtl1f

I'll say it again. Denial. That's all this is.

[devilsadvocate85]

Please skip the personal attacks; "you don't get it", "particularly poor form", etc. I've followed this story closely, care about it, and am offering considered opinions.

I still don't understand what it is Penn State should have done, but didn't do in 1998 after an investigation of Sandusky produced no charges. This "14 year" mantra which has come from the NCAA, along with vacated wins going back to 1998, seems strange.

By trying to push the 1998 incident toward a more favorable result for Penn State and less so Sandusky, Penn State began the downward spiral that speaks for itself. What Penn State should have done was push the local authorities and child protection services to uncover every single rock, stone, pebble, etc to insure that the "truth" was found and then they likely could have distanced themselves from Sandusky immediately. Please don't try to tell me that when presented with the possibility that children were being harmed, that PR spin should take precedence over the safety of children. Once they chose to protect themselves and Sandusky once, they were married to his behavior until someone else blew the whistle and stood up for the kids.

[Atlanta Duke]

I'll say it again. Denial. That's all this is.

Jerry Sandusky respectfully disagrees

Jerry Sandusky is distraught over the NCAA penalties issued to Penn State's football program for the school's handling of his child sexual abuse scandal and maintains his innocence as he awaits sentencing, his defense lawyer said Wednesday.

Attorney Joe Amendola told The Associated Press in a phone interview that Sandusky told him that even if people believe he is guilty of the crimes for which he was convicted in June, it would be "ridiculous" to think Penn State administrators engaged in a cover-up....

"He said, `To do what they're doing to Penn State is so unjust," Amendola said. "He loves the program and he loves the university."

Amendola said Sandusky has asked county jail officials to remove him from what is effectively solitary confinement.

"He continues to believe that the truth will come out at some point, and that he'll get another trial or another opportunity to establish his innocence," Amendola said.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8222521/jerry-sandusky-upset-penn-state-nittany-lions-sanctions

[Jderf]

The first of the two e-mails is dated May 6, 1998.

The re-line is "Joe Paterno" and the text of the original e-mail is "I have touched base with the coach. Keep us posted. Thanks."

Now I guess that could mean that he touched base with Paterno about any number of things, but the next e-mail in the chain reads "Will do. Since we talked tonight, I've learned that the Public Welfare people will interview the individual Thursday."

Given that context, I don't think it's reasonable to suggest that Curley meant anything other than that he'd been in contact with JoePa about Sandusky being investigated. I suppose JoePa might not have asked why his long time assistant was being investigated and interviewed by police, but that's even less reasonable to truly believe.

I think the second e-mail is even tougher to call ambiguous. The re line is "Jerry" and the text of the e-mail reads "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands." What else could that mean? What else could Joe be talking about, and why would, if Joe was worried about Jerry's retirement package, Curley have forwarded the question to Schultz?

These e-mails are only ambiguous if there's a whole bunch of denial going on.

And then there is this. It's a small piece of the puzzle, but one I think is relevant. It will be written off as mere coincidence, if its even credited at all (or if there's a response) but from Esquire



I'll say it again. Denial. That's all this is.

I think it's pretty clear that Paterno knew that there was an incident in 1998, and that the police were involved. It certainly brings his grand jury testimony into question, and I admit I haven't examined the testimony closely. I still need to do that before I form an opinion.

For me, the biggest outstanding question is the nature of the conversation between McQueary and Paterno in 2001. The Freeh report seems to suggest that McQueary's description of the events to Paterno was nowhere near as graphic as what he later described. In light of that, Paterno's decision not to aggressively pursue the situation seems tragically under-informed, rather than revealing an active cover-up.

[Jderf]

By trying to push the 1998 incident toward a more favorable result for Penn State and less so Sandusky, Penn State began the downward spiral that speaks for itself. What Penn State should have done was push the local authorities and child protection services to uncover every single rock, stone, pebble, etc to insure that the "truth" was found and then they likely could have distanced themselves from Sandusky immediately. Please don't try to tell me that when presented with the possibility that children were being harmed, that PR spin should take precedence over the safety of children. Once they chose to protect themselves and Sandusky once, they were married to his behavior until someone else blew the whistle and stood up for the kids.

I'm just curious, on what evidence are you basing this conclusion that Penn State influenced the 1998 investigation in the first place? My conclusion from the Freeh report was that it was steered off course by the second psychologist's analysis that "men don't become pedophiles in their fifties." Sadly, he couldn't have possibly known that this had been going on for some time and that it was not a spontaneous, dramatic change in behavior. Care to illustrate why you came to a different conclusion?

[devilsadvocate85]

I think it's pretty clear that Paterno knew that there was an incident in 1998, and that the police were involved. It certainly brings his grand jury testimony into question, and I admit I haven't examined the testimony closely. I still need to do that before I form an opinion.

For me, the biggest outstanding question is the nature of the conversation between McQueary and Paterno in 2001. The Freeh report seems to suggest that McQueary's description of the events to Paterno was nowhere near as graphic as what he later described. In light of that, Paterno's decision not to aggressively pursue the situation seems tragically under-informed, rather than revealing an active cover-up.

Given that he knew about the 1998 investigation, cover up or not, wouldn't McQueary's report to a reasonable person result in a "holy crap we have a major problem here" response and not a "oh, I'll just tell my nominal superiors and hope this one goes away as well" response?

[Jderf]

Given that he knew about the 1998 investigation, cover up or not, wouldn't McQueary's report to a reasonable person result in a "holy crap we have a major problem here" response and not a "oh, I'll just tell my nominal superiors and hope this one goes away as well" response?

Which is why this issue seems to be critical:


The Freeh report seems to suggest that McQueary's description of the events to Paterno was nowhere near as graphic as what he later described. In light of that, Paterno's decision not to aggressively pursue the situation seems tragically under-informed, rather than revealing an active cover-up.

That, at least to me, is how I've understood Paterno's regrets that he "wished he had done more."