NCAA backing off on Penn State discipline?

[Jim3k]

Yes, according to Pat Forde (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--penn-state-s-softened-sentence-is-an-admission-that-the-ncaa-went-too-far-182434121.html) at Yahoo.

I think most of us will agree that a child molestation matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Criminal issue? Yes. Civil issue? Yes.

The issue, though, is not what the NCAA ordered, but what PSU allowed the NCAA to order. Essentially, PSU agreed to the penalties.

Forde probably has it right--that the NCAA has come to realize that the agreement went far beyond its rules and into an area where the public could understand that it had gone too far. As a result the NCAA knows it has become the target of credible claims that its sanctions were actually arbitrary and excessive. Such criticism has become tangled up with other its other arbitrariness and it is now completely distracted from its goal.

[OldPhiKap]

Yes, according to Pat Forde (http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--penn-state-s-softened-sentence-is-an-admission-that-the-ncaa-went-too-far-182434121.html) at Yahoo.

I think most of us will agree that a child molestation matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA. Criminal issue? Yes. Civil issue? Yes.

The issue, though, is not what the NCAA ordered, but what PSU allowed the NCAA to order. Essentially, PSU agreed to the penalties.

Forde probably has it right--that the NCAA has come to realize that the agreement went far beyond its rules and into an area where the public could understand that it had gone too far. As a result the NCAA knows it has become the target of credible claims that its sanctions were actually arbitrary and excessive. Such criticism has become tangled up with other its other arbitrariness and it is now completely distracted from its goal.

Forde makes some good points. I don't think the NCAA can win here, though, no matter what they do.

[Wander]

I think most of us will agree that a child molestation matter is beyond the jurisdiction of the NCAA.

I don't - at least not when the situation is so heavily entangled with college athletics. If this wasn't an example of a "lack of institutional control," then what is? Forde is right to point out that the NCAA acted in a way it never has before - but this was the worst scandal in the history of college sports, i.e. a situation that has never happened before.

I'm guess I'm fine with the reduction in punishment, because it seems like Penn State has genuinely put forth a lot of effort to improve itself, but I think this was more about the NCAA needing to find some goodwill amongst its member schools than sincerely deciding it overstepped (which I don't think it did).

[Dev11]

I don't - at least not when the situation is so heavily entangled with college athletics. If this wasn't an example of a "lack of institutional control," then what is? Forde is right to point out that the NCAA acted in a way it never has before - but this was the worst scandal in the history of college sports, i.e. a situation that has never happened before.

I'm guess I'm fine with the reduction in punishment, because it seems like Penn State has genuinely put forth a lot of effort to improve itself, but I think this was more about the NCAA needing to find some goodwill amongst its member schools than sincerely deciding it overstepped (which I don't think it did).

It helps that the people who were instrumental in the scandal, in fact anybody who even knew it was happening, are all gone from Penn State now, right? One of the big criticisms of the NCAA and its penalties is that it punishes the 'innocent.'

[roywhite]

I don't - at least not when the situation is so heavily entangled with college athletics. If this wasn't an example of a "lack of institutional control," then what is? Forde is right to point out that the NCAA acted in a way it never has before - but this was the worst scandal in the history of college sports, i.e. a situation that has never happened before.

I'm guess I'm fine with the reduction in punishment, because it seems like Penn State has genuinely put forth a lot of effort to improve itself, but I think this was more about the NCAA needing to find some goodwill amongst its member schools than sincerely deciding it overstepped (which I don't think it did).

And just what was the connection to college sports? Just that Jerry Sandusky was a retired coach? That Joe Paterno reported an incident he heard about to his superiors?

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not part of cover-up (http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-07/news/41836502_1_sandusky-prosecutor-jerry-sandusky-tim-curley)


One of the attorneys who prosecuted the Jerry Sandusky child-abuse case said he found no evidence that former Pennsylvania State University football coach Joe Paterno participated in a cover-up of the allegations.....

About Paterno's not having a role in a cover-up, Fina said, "I'm viewing this strictly on the evidence, not any kind of fealty to anybody. ... I did not find that evidence."

[Chicago 1995]

And just what was the connection to college sports? Just that Jerry Sandusky was a retired coach? That Joe Paterno reported an incident he heard about to his superiors?

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not part of cover-up (http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-07/news/41836502_1_sandusky-prosecutor-jerry-sandusky-tim-curley)

Even taking the facts in the light most favorable to PSU and JoePa, those superiors, one of whom was the athletic (you know, sports) director, didn't elevate the report any further and took exactly no steps thereafter to investigate, find the victim or curtail Sandusky's access to PSU or take steps to keep him away from potential victims. And that was knowing that similar allegations had been made about Sandusky in 1998.

The Freeh Reports conclusion -- that the PSU admin didn't act in order to try to avoid scandal and damage to the football program -- makes sense. Amd makes this all about the most powerful, profitable and important thing at Penn State. Football.

That Penn State is getting leniancy in the Sandusky matter and USC not in the Reggie Bush matter is a particularly charming position that the NCAA has put itself in. Harboring, enabling and covering up for a pedophile isn't as big a deal as playing a guy who took money from an agent.

[Wander]

It helps that the people who were instrumental in the scandal, in fact anybody who even knew it was happening, are all gone from Penn State now, right? One of the big criticisms of the NCAA and its penalties is that it punishes the 'innocent.'

Sure, I think it's fair to say that helps. As far as punishing the innocent... I'm not totally unsympathetic, but a) this is going to happen to some degree anytime you punish a corporation, government, school, sports team, or any group of people for anything, and b) the "punishment" here is basically Penn State not having as good a football team as they would otherwise have. We're not talking about innocent people going to jail or something.



And just what was the connection to college sports? Just that Jerry Sandusky was a retired coach? That Joe Paterno reported an incident he heard about to his superiors?


I'm not going to get sucked into an argument with a Penn State fan about the details of Paterno's or the football program's role in the worst scandal in the history of college sports in this thread. Suffice it to say that an extremely large number of people who aren't PSU fans have heard the story, considered the evidence, and decided that there's a pretty substantial connection to the athletic department beyond just Sandusky.

[Turk]

The NCAA is getting hammered with the O'Bannon case, Johnny Football, concussion liability, athlete stipends, and the usual convoluted and arbitrary maze of eligibility rules. In desperate search of positive headlines, Emmert is trying another unilateral stunt to make the NCAA look good.

I think Rich Hofmann of the Philly Daily News nailed it:

http://www.philly.com/philly/sports/colleges/20130925_Change_in_scholarship_limits_for_Penn_Sta te_a_step_in_right_direction.html

Money quote:

"Yes, this is edging toward justice - or, at least, away from injustice. This was always a legal matter, not an NCAA matter. That Penn State had a problem with its football/athletics culture was plain. That people paid with their jobs, and had their conduct reviewed by the authorities, and that the university paid through civil lawsuits, seemed the obvious and appropriate remedy. The rest of this was PR and nothing more.

And we can now say, with some certainty, that the NCAA punished the wrong people when it stepped into this matter and did nothing to enhance its reputation either with the public or within the college community."

[sagegrouse]

And just what was the connection to college sports? Just that Jerry Sandusky was a retired coach? That Joe Paterno reported an incident he heard about to his superiors?

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not part of cover-up (http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-07/news/41836502_1_sandusky-prosecutor-jerry-sandusky-tim-curley)

Ah, yes, Roy! My dim memory of your to-the-wall defense of Joe Paterno is coming back. I hope we don't rehash this issue.

sagegrouse

[BigWayne]

I believe the NCAA is realizing they stepped in it at PSU. Instead of focusing on how the activities at PSU violated something the NCAA regulates, they slammed them for general bad and/or unlawful activity. Setting that precedent could make them liable for regulating anything bad or unlawful a university does, whether it breaks an NCAA rule or not.

[BigWayne]

http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/media-center/news/executive-committee-restores-penn-state-football-postseason-scholarships


NCAA @NCAA · 1m

The NCAA has also returned all 85 football scholarships to Penn State, beginning in 2015-16. Read more: http://on.ncaa.com/1Bnz6E3

Replied to 0 times

NCAA @NCAA · 5m

Due to Penn State’s progress in ensuring athletics dept functions with integrity, NCAA immediately restores football postseason eligibility.

[Duvall]

The football-industrial complex always wins.

[Chicago 1995]

Terrible. Just terrible .

Not surprising, sadly, but terrible.

[Wander]

"NCAA decides 3 years of not having the privilege to play in a bowl game too harsh a penalty for football program that allowed systematic raping of children" sounds like an Onion headline.

[uh_no]

Terrible. Just terrible .

Not surprising, sadly, but terrible.

might have something to do with the fact that they were going to lose big in a lawsuit brought by the state of PA. they were also opening themselves up to liability if they punish schools for things that are not against their own rules...in the future if the NCAA DIDN'T step in in such a case, they could be sued by whatever the victims of such a case

the outcome of the obannon case may have also been a factor making the NCAA especially wary of overstepping bounds....especially when stepping on the government's toes

basically IMhO, the NCAA has been the BMoC for so long, and the past 3-4 years they've come to realize that the government is the bigger man on campus, and they ought not provoke the bigger bully.

It's certainly unfortunate that the result is penn state getting off "easy" for what happened, but i think this is a self preservation move more than anything.

[roywhite]

And just what was the connection to college sports? Just that Jerry Sandusky was a retired coach? That Joe Paterno reported an incident he heard about to his superiors?

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not part of cover-up (http://articles.philly.com/2013-09-07/news/41836502_1_sandusky-prosecutor-jerry-sandusky-tim-curley)


"NCAA decides 3 years of not having the privilege to play in a bowl game too harsh a penalty for football program that allowed systematic raping of children" sounds like an Onion headline.

Have you followed this closely? What you claim about the role of the Penn State football program is simply untrue.

[Chicago 1995]

Have you followed this closely? What you claim about the role of the Penn State football program is simply untrue.

No. No it's not.

Plenty of us have been following this plenty closely but not through JoePa and Nittany Blue tinted eyes, and we're disgusted by the whole thing.

Nothing's happened since the NCAA handed down its sanction to change my mind. They shouldn't be playing football at Penn State. Not for a long, long time. Maybe forever.

[ricks68]

No. No it's not.

Plenty of us have been following this plenty closely but not through JoePa and Nittany Blue tinted eyes, and we're disgusted by the whole thing.

Nothing's happened since the NCAA handed down its sanction to change my mind. They shouldn't be playing football at Penn State. Not for a long, long time. Maybe forever.

Right to the point. I agree. This was a scandal that went right to the top of the administration. Absolutely despicable behavior. Kinda like the school(?) down the road from us, but at a much, much higher level of immorality.

ricks

[roywhite]

No. No it's not.

Plenty of us have been following this plenty closely but not through JoePa and Nittany Blue tinted eyes, and we're disgusted by the whole thing.

Nothing's happened since the NCAA handed down its sanction to change my mind. They shouldn't be playing football at Penn State. Not for a long, long time. Maybe forever.

Fine. Spell it out for me.

What exactly tells you the football program at Penn State was guilty of some terrible crime?

There is an ex-employee, Jerry Sandusky, in jail for life, but not based on incidents that happened on campus or while he was an employee.
The head coach, Joe Paterno, properly relayed a report that came to him second hand. The prosecutor that conducted the Sandusky case saw no evidence of a cover-up by Joe Paterno. There are 3 University employees that face trials, which haven't happened yet, and certainly don't seem like a sure bet for conviction.

I don't know what makes you so sure you know what happened. It reminds me of the Duke faculty group that were absolutely sure they knew what went on in the Duke lacrosse case. Turned out, they were wrong.

Skip the sanctimony, and try some facts.

[Chicago 1995]

That you're equating this to the Duke Lax case is an utter admission of failure. And it's horrifically offensive to the people Penn State fans and JoePa supporters want to forget. There were ACTUAL victims of child rape here. A number of them. No Crystal Mangum here. Actual children raped by a pedophile and one protected by the PSU administration.

Simple question: Would Penn State's administration have been as protective of it's English department if a Professor Emeritus of English had faced the same allegations and history Sandusky did? The answer's obviously no, and that's why it's a football problem. Sandusky wasn't outed by the admin because of the damage it would do to the football program.

And that so many Penn State backers can't/won't understand that is proof the cancer that football is in that community hasn't been cured

[roywhite]

Fine. Spell it out for me.

What exactly tells you the football program at Penn State was guilty of some terrible crime?

Skip the sanctimony, and try some facts.


That you're equating this to the Duke Lax case is an utter admission of failure. And it's horrifically offensive to the people Penn State fans and JoePa supporters want to forget. There were ACTUAL victims of child rape here. A number of them. No Crystal Mangum here. Actual children raped by a pedophile and one protected by the PSU administration.



You have failed to present a link to the Penn State football program.

[Chicago 1995]

You have failed to present a link to the Penn State football program.

No, I haven't.

Would Penn State have been as protective of Jerry Sandusky were he a Retired English Professor?

No, he was protected, as the Freeh Report found, to protect the reputation of the football program.

Failure to admit that is a sign that you're part of a problem that still clearly exists in Happy Valley.

[roywhite]

No, I haven't.

Would Penn State have been as protective of Jerry Sandusky were he a Retired English Professor?

No, he was protected, as the Freeh Report found, to protect the reputation of the football program.

Failure to admit that is a sign that you're part of a problem that still clearly exists in Happy Valley.

After 3 requests, you came up with the Freeh Report.

Is that your best effort?

The report done by ex-Attorney General Dick Thornburgh contradicts the Freeh Report. The prosecutor who investigated, and convicted Jerry Sandusky, found no evidence of a cover-up on the part of Joe Paterno.

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not involved in cover-up (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/09/05/Sandusky-prosecutor-Paterno-not-involved-in-cover-up/stories/201309050363)

[alteran]

Fine. Spell it out for me.

What exactly tells you the football program at Penn State was guilty of some terrible crime?

There is an ex-employee, Jerry Sandusky, in jail for life, but not based on incidents that happened on campus or while he was an employee.

[snip]

Skip the sanctimony, and try some facts.

I've got two words for you: slapping sounds (http://abcnews.go.com/US/jerry-sandusky-trial-hears-key-witness-mike-mcqueary/story?id=16545142). On campus, contra your comments. Makes me vomit in my mouth what went on there. Thanks for making me link to that to sate your desire for facts-- facts that everyone knows about, literally ad nauseum.

You know, when this story came out about the NCAA backing off, I thought it might be time to move on after all. But you have proved to me how wrong that thought was.

Your tired defense of what Penn State let happen, and insistence that we prove all over again what a reprehensible, disgusting, and entirely avoidable episode laid at the feet of Penn State football this was, has made me infuriated all over again-- and underscored how many people have indeed learned not a damn thing from this entire horrific incident.

Skip the rationalization, and try some facts yourself.

[Duvall]

There is an ex-employee, Jerry Sandusky, in jail for life, but not based on incidents that happened on campus or while he was an employee.

That's not true. That's not remotely true. (http://blogs.post-gazette.com/scandal/timeline.php)

Sandusky was convicted of multiple crimes that took place during his time as an assistant coach (even if, for some reason, his time as a "coach emeritus" with unlimited access to the football facilities doesn't count). Sandusky was convicted for multiple offenses that took places in the Penn State football facilities and locker rooms.

[Duvall]

They shouldn't be playing football at Penn State. Not for a long, long time. Maybe forever.

It's obvious that Penn State needed a long break from football to drain the fever swamp. It's a shame that the industrialization of college sports makes it impossible for a university to do the right thing in a case like this.

[Dev11]

Are any of the people who were involved in the scandal and/or cover-up still employed by or enrolled at Penn State? If not, I fail to see how continuing to limit the football program does any value.

I don't want to make the crimes seem light. They weren't. Who, though, is punished here?

[Wander]

You have failed to present a link to the Penn State football program.

This is becoming tiresome dude. Here are "spelled out" facts relating the incident to the football program:

1. A Penn State football coach repeatedly raped children.
2. That probably needs repeating: A Penn State football coach repeatedly raped children.
3. A bunch of the rapes happened in a Penn State football building.
4. Another Penn State football employee witnessed one of the rapes in the Penn State football building.
5. The Penn State football head coach was informed of the incident, knew it was at the very least that it was sexual abuse, and barely did anything in response.
6. A bunch of the rapes happened while the Penn State football coach was an employee (and even for the others, he was affiliated with the Penn State football program).
7. A bunch of Penn State football fans rioted because, in an incident that centered on the rape of a lot of children, they felt the Penn State football program head coach being fired was worthy of rioting.

And honestly, I feel sort of sick after even thinking about this stuff again, that I'm just going to stop there and let others fill in the rest.

[Wander]

Are any of the people who were involved in the scandal and/or cover-up still employed by or enrolled at Penn State? If not, I fail to see how continuing to limit the football program does any value.

I don't want to make the crimes seem light. They weren't. Who, though, is punished here?

I don't think you're being unreasonable, but a few points:

1. Going to the postseason in college football isn't a right.
2. The kids were given the option to transfer without penalty.
3. A lot of the kids at this point committed to Penn State "knowing" that they wouldn't play in a bowl.
4. As Duvall and Chicago said, holy crap, it sure seems that campus need a break from football entirely based on a lot of the fan reaction. It's not just about the actions of Sandusky, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno, disgusting as they all were. There was a lot going on in the culture that helped the whole thing spiral out of control.
5. Your argument basically means no one can punish a school or corporation for any wrongdoing, ever. It also encourages schools/corporations to just set up a "fall guy" to avoid punishment.

Ultimately, I agree it does suck that some kids who didn't do anything wrong missed a bowl game in a 7 win season, but given how laughably trivial that is compared to the crimes that occurred, and given that they were allowed to transfer without losing eligibility, IMO it's very, very, VERY far down on the list of things to be concerned about here.

[UVaAmbassador]

I don't think you're being unreasonable, but a few points:

1. Going to the postseason in college football isn't a right.
2. The kids were given the option to transfer without penalty.
3. A lot of the kids at this point committed to Penn State "knowing" that they wouldn't play in a bowl.
4. As Duvall and Chicago said, holy crap, it sure seems that campus need a break from football entirely based on a lot of the fan reaction. It's not just about the actions of Sandusky, Curley, Spanier, and Paterno, disgusting as they all were. There was a lot going on in the culture that helped the whole thing spiral out of control.
5. Your argument basically means no one can punish a school or corporation for any wrongdoing, ever. It also encourages schools/corporations to just set up a "fall guy" to avoid punishment.

Ultimately, I agree it does suck that some kids who didn't do anything wrong missed a bowl game in a 7 win season, but given how laughably trivial that is compared to the crimes that occurred, and given that they were allowed to transfer without losing eligibility, IMO it's very, very, VERY far down on the list of things to be concerned about here.


This is the first time I have posted in years, since they shut down the public policy board. Penn St sheltered a rapist for decades. Supposedly he was still maintaining an office in the Penn St. athletic building at the time he was arrested. I absolutely cannot understand posters like roywhite who excuse this kind of behavior. While I'm sympathetic to the current players, they knew what the signed up for when they committed to Penn State. If the NCAA is going to establish ANY credibility, they need to uphold their penalties. This sets a terrible precedent.

[Chicago 1995]

After 3 requests, you came up with the Freeh Report.

Is that your best effort?

The report done by ex-Attorney General Dick Thornburgh contradicts the Freeh Report. The prosecutor who investigated, and convicted Jerry Sandusky, found no evidence of a cover-up on the part of Joe Paterno.

Sandusky prosecutor: Paterno not involved in cover-up (http://www.post-gazette.com/news/state/2013/09/05/Sandusky-prosecutor-Paterno-not-involved-in-cover-up/stories/201309050363)

Even accepting for sake of argument the Thornburgh finding -- he was retained by the PATERNO FAMILY, so I'm only accepting it for sake of argument given the obvious credibility issues that raises -- that JoePa didn't know, that alone doesn't make it not a football problem.

I'll ask for the third time a simple question: If Sandusky was an Professor Emeritus of English, would the University have acted in the same way? Heck, if he was a retired assistant basketball coach or fencing coach or volleyball coach, would Penn State have acted in the same way?

You can't with a straight face say that it would. That's why it is a football problem. And the response of the University community and the Penn State fan base to this -- much like your response here -- is why the football program needed to be punished and punished much more gravely than it has been. Children, lots and lots of children, were raped at Penn State and in Happy Valley by Jerry Sandusky. And too damn many people are upset that a coach's wins got wiped out and that his statue got torn down. Not worried about how Sandusky could be a predator using the Penn State football program as an enticement to draw his victims in could have operated so long under their nose. Worried about wins and a statue.

You called me out for citing the Freeh Report, only to throw a report paid for JoePa's family in my face. You've chided people here for not following this and understanding the facts and yet, you've claimed Sandusky didn't commit crimes on campus or while he was an employee -- both of which are completely and utterly false. Worse yet, you've tried to draw an analogy to the Duke Lacrosse Scandal here, knowing the buttons that pushes. That misses at least one important point, but one that you never seem to address, and given your posting history here don't seem to care about. Jerry Sandusky raped a lot of children. Based on the trial Sandusky raped at least 14 boys, and any research into the pathology of serial pedophiles like Sandusky would tell you that there are very likely more victims who didn't come forward. Analogizing this to the Duke Lacrosse Scandal -- a case where the claims of rape were false -- is insulting as hell to those 14 victims and their families, and again, it's more evidence of a lack of care or understanding of the crimes Jerry Sandusky committed -- crimes that Penn State took no steps to stop when presented the chance out of a desire to protect its football program.

Sports are a cesspool. It would be great if we were back in the halcyon days where we didn't know that sports are a cesspool. We're not. We know that the guys who own these franchises are drunks, drug addicts and racists. We know that the most popular sport in the nation is essentially Big Tobacco when it comes to head injuries and the health of its own players. We know that they guys who play that game are, at least in part, monsters who abuse women. We know that our college sports programs are built on academic fraud in too many places, and that the lofty ideals of amateurism have been laid bare as simply a way for colleges to exploit and profit off their athletes. Schools don't take sexual assault allegations seriously from Florida State to Missouri to Iowa and points in between. Sports are a slice of culture, and they seem to have magnified all its warts.

And yet, for all that evil, Penn State, in my book, is absolutely as bad as it gets.

[Jim3k]

I'm not going to disagree with any of the onions thrown at Penn State's football culture. It was a bubble under which a cancer grew.

That said, the question for this thread is why the NCAA is backing away from the penalty it levied--which PSU willingly accepted. I suggest several things.

First, the primary agency having remedial and penalty authority was the county, applying the state criminal code to the actual perpetrator. It also went after some administrators for perjury/obstruction in the cover-up.

Second, the NCAA really had no jurisdiction over this matter to begin with. Its rules simply don't address the criminal conduct of students, faculty and staff, no matter how heinous. They deal with issues of athletic eligibility--amateurism, recruiting rules, game integrity (including game fixing, which is a crime), etc. To my knowledge it has never before concerned itself with common crimes, leaving such matters to the state authorities or the member university. The loss of institutional control rule has no application to criminality unrelated to its regulated sports, although that is the peg on which the NCAA hung PSU's hat. That position was, and is, legally very weak. Most analysts thought the NCAA exceeded its reach when it imposed the penalty on PSU and were surprised when PSU put up no resistance.

[***In contrast, the SMU death penalty of 1986 was due to its being a repeat violator of the NCAA recruiting rules, paying players and losing institutional control over its athletic programs. Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_%28NCAA%29#Southern_Methodist_Univer sity_football.2C_1986) Even that only lasted two years.***]

Third, there has been a recent development in Pennsylvania law. The legislature determined that if an NCAA fine was to be paid, the state should be the recipient, not the NCAA. In fact, here, the NCAA didn't really have much of a plan for the money. Somehow, it was to be distributed to child protection groups. The state runs its own agencies having the same purpose and which could spend the money more effectively. Indeed, the NCAA immediately agreed to provide the fine money to the state for proper administration--because it didn't really want to oversee it.

Given these background facts, it does not surprise me that the NCAA is willing to entertain modifications of its punishment. The state has stepped in with criminal sanctions, the university's enablers are gone and the state will take the NCAA off its own hook, both WRT its own rule overreaching and the distribution of the remedial money. Reducing the penalty seems reasonable.

[ice-9]

Reducing the penalty seems reasonable.

It can certainly be rationalized, but I'm not sure what kind of message it sends.

Is this about what's legal or about what's right? As an institution of higher learning, one would hope that Penn St opts for the latter.

[JBDuke]

Everybody's had a chance to state their position again, and the new facts about the NCAA action have been discussed, but without really changing the fundamental arguments about the whole mess. There seems to be no purpose to leaving this thread open any further, and doing so is likely to lead to incivility as those entrenched in very different positions continue to argue passionately. Several posts above are already toeing the line.

If anyone wants to make a case for reopening this thread, please PM me or one of the other mods, or use the "report post" feature to send a note to all of us. For now, this thread is closed.