PSU SANCTIONS AND PATERNO

[WarEagle10 77]

I agree with you, MSG.  The forfeiture of victories is silly. It does nothing.  Jopa's rep is forever tarnished, how does removing those victories, won by the players, an effective punishment?  Fining the university and reducing the schollies punishes the school for their involvement.  Vacating wins only punishes the players that are long gone and had no involvement in the first place.

Personally, I think the part of vacating all of those wins is in anticipation of PSU's appeal to this decision.  PSU appeals, the NCAA says "okay, we'll drop the vacating the wins penalty, and everything else stands".  This way, the NCAA has a compromise built into the judgement they handed down.

Vacating the wins is kinda silly, if you ask me, but the NCAA is trying to send a strict message that covering up severe issues will not be tolerated. 

PSU can not appeal. This is what they get. No if's, and's, or but's.

[bigbird 60,580]

I agree with you, MSG.  The forfeiture of victories is silly. It does nothing.  Jopa's rep is forever tarnished, how does removing those victories, won by the players, an effective punishment?  Fining the university and reducing the schollies punishes the school for their involvement.  Vacating wins only punishes the players that are long gone and had no involvement in the first place.

Personally, I think the part of vacating all of those wins is in anticipation of PSU's appeal to this decision.  PSU appeals, the NCAA says "okay, we'll drop the vacating the wins penalty, and everything else stands".  This way, the NCAA has a compromise built into the judgement they handed down.

Vacating the wins is kinda silly, if you ask me, but the NCAA is trying to send a strict message that covering up severe issues will not be tolerated. 

PSU can not appeal. This is what they get. No if's, and's, or but's.

correct, they signed off on it already.

[dpwspringer 0]

 No, you misunderstood my statement.  Sandusky, although employed by PSU, was not working in the capacity of a PSU employee when these events happened.  He was working as an independent contractor, ie., a part-time job.  The youth camps were programs created, financed, and operated by Sandusky, not PSU.  The only involvement PSU had was their renting the facilities to him.  What will nullify my argument is if these youth programs were operated by/for PSU.

I believe you are in error about Sandusky and when this was first discovered. When it was first discovered he was still coaching at PSU as their DC and associate head coach.  He was on track to succeed Paterno as head coach when Paterno retired, which at that time was any year now.  When this was first discovered by PSU, they covered it up and gave Sandusky a sweet-heart retirement package-- apackage that allowed him to maintain an office and full use of PSU facilities.  I grant you, the folks at PSU figured and hoped that was the end of it and Sandusky made a one time mistake or they half way believed whatever he told them about what he was caught doing, but in the grand scheme of things that was just an excuse to protect the PSU brand and their own image/jobs.  I'm not sure about this, but I think the first incident that was uncovered was a kids mother complaining because her son came home with wet hair and she was upset when she found out he had showered alone with Coach Sandusky in the PSU locker room.

Now, with that in mind, you might want to reconsider your thoughts.

No, you also misunderstand.  The youth programs were not operated by Sandusky the PSU employee but as Sandusky the independent contractor.  Yes, Sandusky was employed by PSU at the time, but the youth program was not originated, financed or directed by PSU, therefore not a "sanctioned" PSU event.  PSU was doing Sandusky a favor by allowing the use of their premises and now they are paying for that courtesy they gave him.

Look, I'm not defending PSU at all.  They need to be BURIED for what they allowed to happen.  But because of these "unprecedented" actions which the NCAA has granted itself they are now expanding their authority as to the operation of AU's program, which is my concern. 

Sandusky being employed by PSU at the time PSU first had knowledge there was a problem made PSU involved, PSU continuing to allow Sandusky access to their facilities, and Sandusky continuing to use those facilities to rape little boys is what PSU has no defense for and is what they get no sympathy for from the NCAA (and many others).

[Elephant Tipper 430]

 No, you misunderstood my statement.  Sandusky, although employed by PSU, was not working in the capacity of a PSU employee when these events happened.  He was working as an independent contractor, ie., a part-time job.  The youth camps were programs created, financed, and operated by Sandusky, not PSU.  The only involvement PSU had was their renting the facilities to him.  What will nullify my argument is if these youth programs were operated by/for PSU.

I believe you are in error about Sandusky and when this was first discovered. When it was first discovered he was still coaching at PSU as their DC and associate head coach.  He was on track to succeed Paterno as head coach when Paterno retired, which at that time was any year now.  When this was first discovered by PSU, they covered it up and gave Sandusky a sweet-heart retirement package-- apackage that allowed him to maintain an office and full use of PSU facilities.  I grant you, the folks at PSU figured and hoped that was the end of it and Sandusky made a one time mistake or they half way believed whatever he told them about what he was caught doing, but in the grand scheme of things that was just an excuse to protect the PSU brand and their own image/jobs.  I'm not sure about this, but I think the first incident that was uncovered was a kids mother complaining because her son came home with wet hair and she was upset when she found out he had showered alone with Coach Sandusky in the PSU locker room.

Now, with that in mind, you might want to reconsider your thoughts.

No, you also misunderstand.  The youth programs were not operated by Sandusky the PSU employee but as Sandusky the independent contractor.  Yes, Sandusky was employed by PSU at the time, but the youth program was not originated, financed or directed by PSU, therefore not a "sanctioned" PSU event.  PSU was doing Sandusky a favor by allowing the use of their premises and now they are paying for that courtesy they gave him.

Look, I'm not defending PSU at all.  They need to be BURIED for what they allowed to happen.  But because of these "unprecedented" actions which the NCAA has granted itself they are now expanding their authority as to the operation of AU's program, which is my concern. 

Sandusky being employed by PSU at the time PSU first had knowledge there was a problem made PSU involved, PSU continuing to allow Sandusky access to their facilities, and Sandusky continuing to use those facilities to rape little boys is what PSU has no defense for and is what they get no sympathy for from the NCAA (and many others).

And this gives advantage to the PSU football program how exactly ?  It doesn't.  The NCAA bylaws govern this specific area only.  At best your argument is a vagary, but because of public outcry that "something be done", something is being done and that is the expansion of the NCAA's area of authority to cover events not related to their bylaws.  This will affect AU and every other NCAA school.....way beyond the area of what PSU is guilty of doing.  It's a mistake, a serious mistake on the part of the NCAA.  The criminal justice system handles such matters.

[rockfordpi 91]

Personally, I think the NCAA is making a huge mistake and over stepping their bounds MASSIVELY. IMO, the NCAA has no place here. They have no precedent. They have no authority. They are not within their jurisdiction (so to speak) and they are not operating within the confines of their purpose and existance as an institution at all. We have criminal courts to handle these types of matters. The NCAA is in the wrong galaxy here (not just zip code), and I cannot understand what Emmerrit is doing. At all.

PSU should fight the NCAA every step of the way on this one.

And by the way, I am not coming from a point of caring one bit what happens to PSU. I am coming from a much broader perspective of the NCAA operating WAY WAY out of its bounds in an area that has nothing to do with their actual purpose. It is a horrible idea, what they are doing and if they want to get involved with stuff like this (crimes and felonies) what type of precedent does it set, and where does it begin and end?

I agree. Crimes should be punished by the criminal justice system, damages should be awarded by the civil courts.

The NCAA should limit themselves to regulating things that give schools a competitive advantage or things done to the detriment of the student athlete (not saying molesters and those who cover for them should not be punished HARSHLY, just saying that is not the role of the NCAA).

In my mind, the NCAA just entered into the realm of government and imposed a 60 million tax on the taxpayers of that state. The powers that be may have waived their right of due process when they agreed to that, but the tax payers did not nor did any elected official do so on their behalf.

What happens in the future when the NCAA (which is not required to meet the requirements of federal due process) decides to punish a coach/school/team for something criminal and  that entity is found not guilty by the criminal justice system?

What about coaches who are involved in financial scandals (Usually such coaches are used to recruit investors because of their fame that comes from being a coach), is the NCAA going to punish schools for that?

What about Bobby Petrino? Some laws may have been broken their as well.

Again, I am NOT defending Child molesters here. I am just saying the NCAA is not a government agency and it seems that people are beginning to accept them as being one.

Hypothetical question. Supposed all the same people were involved in this crime,  but EVERYTHING in this scandal occurred off campus and at non PSU events? Should PSU have been punished?

(yes, I understand that the scandal DID occur on campus which opened the door to the NCAA, I am just trying to get into my mind where the line should/will be drawn)

[msg6367 1]

Personally, I think the NCAA is making a huge mistake and over stepping their bounds MASSIVELY. IMO, the NCAA has no place here. They have no precedent. They have no authority. They are not within their jurisdiction (so to speak) and they are not operating within the confines of their purpose and existance as an institution at all. We have criminal courts to handle these types of matters. The NCAA is in the wrong galaxy here (not just zip code), and I cannot understand what Emmerrit is doing. At all.

PSU should fight the NCAA every step of the way on this one.

And by the way, I am not coming from a point of caring one bit what happens to PSU. I am coming from a much broader perspective of the NCAA operating WAY WAY out of its bounds in an area that has nothing to do with their actual purpose. It is a horrible idea, what they are doing and if they want to get involved with stuff like this (crimes and felonies) what type of precedent does it set, and where does it begin and end?

I agree. Crimes should be punished by the criminal justice system, damages should be awarded by the civil courts.

The NCAA should limit themselves to regulating things that give schools a competitive advantage or things done to the detriment of the student athlete (not saying molesters and those who cover for them should not be punished HARSHLY, just saying that is not the role of the NCAA).

In my mind, the NCAA just entered into the realm of government and imposed a 60 million tax on the taxpayers of that state. The powers that be may have waived their right of due process when they agreed to that, but the tax payers did not nor did any elected official do so on their behalf.

What happens in the future when the NCAA (which is not required to meet the requirements of federal due process) decides to punish a coach/school/team for something criminal and  that entity is found not guilty by the criminal justice system?

What about coaches who are involved in financial scandals (Usually such coaches are used to recruit investors because of their fame that comes from being a coach), is the NCAA going to punish schools for that?

What about Bobby Petrino? Some laws may have been broken their as well.

Again, I am NOT defending Child molesters here. I am just saying the NCAA is not a government agency and it seems that people are beginning to accept them as being one.

Hypothetical question. Supposed all the same people were involved in this crime,  but EVERYTHING in this scandal occurred off campus and at non PSU events? Should PSU have been punished?

(yes, I understand that the scandal DID occur on campus which opened the door to the NCAA, I am just trying to get into my mind where the line should/will be drawn)

Well put Rockford.....and I agree.

[dpwspringer 0]

Sandusky being employed by PSU at the time PSU first had knowledge there was a problem made PSU involved, PSU continuing to allow Sandusky access to their facilities, and Sandusky continuing to use those facilities to rape little boys is what PSU has no defense for and is what they get no sympathy for from the NCAA (and many others).

And this gives advantage to the PSU football program how exactly ?  It doesn't.  The NCAA bylaws govern this specific area only.  At best your argument is a vagary, but because of public outcry that "something be done", something is being done and that is the expansion of the NCAA's area of authority to cover events not related to their bylaws.  This will affect AU and every other NCAA school.....way beyond the area of what PSU is guilty of doing.  It's a mistake, a serious mistake on the part of the NCAA.  The criminal justice system handles such matters.

I believe it has been stated a few times but here goes.  They protected the PSU brand and possibly their own jobs.  The scandal that would have came out over PSU's highly regarded DC and associate head coach molesting a young boy in the PSU shower room would have had an effect of recruiting, donations, how long their prez, vp, ad, and hc (Petrino) stayed PSU's prez, vp, ad, and hc... and not in a good way.

[Autigers71 0]

NCAA Authority to Act

The Executive Committee acts on behalf of the entire Association and implements policies to resolve core issues, pursuant to its authority under the NCAA constitution and Bylaw 4.1.2(e). The Executive Committee along with the Division I Board, a body of presidents representing all of Division I, directed President Emmert to examine the circumstances surrounding the Penn State tragedy and, if appropriate, make recommendations regarding punitive and corrective measures.

As a result of information produced from the Sandusky criminal investigation and the Freeh Report, which Penn State commissioned and also agreed to its findings, it became obvious that the leadership failures at Penn State over an extended period of time directly violated Association bylaws and the NCAA Constitution relating to control over the athletic department, integrity and ethical conduct.

Link to NCAA Constitution References

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207235

Board Executive Committee Motion

http://ncaa.s3.amazonaws.com/files/20120723/BOARD_EC%20MOTION.pdf

Executive Committee:

Stan L. Albrecht, Utah State University, Western Athletic Conference

Judy Genshaft, University of South Florida, Big East Conference

Thomas Haas, Grand Valley State University, Great Lakes intercollegiate Athletic Conference (DII)

William R. Harvey, Hampton University, Mid-Eastern Athletic Conference

Nathan O. Hatch, Wake Forest University, Atlantic Coast Conference

David R. Hopkins, Wright State University, Horizon League

Sidney McPhee, Middle Tennessee State University, Sun Belt Conference

William A. Meehan, Jacksonville State University, Ohio Valley Conference

F. Ann Millner, Weber State University, Big Sky Conference

J. Patrick O'Brien, West Texas A&M University, Lone Star Conference (DII)

Jack R. Ohle, Gustavus Adolphus College, Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference (DIII)

Harris Pastides, University of South Carolina, Columbia, Southeastern Conference

John G. Peters, Northern Illinois University, Mid-American Conference

Edward Ray, Oregon State University, Pac-12 Conference

James Schmotter, Western Connecticut State University, Little East Conference (DIII)

Lou Anna Simon, Michigan State University, Big Ten Conference

Timothy P. White, University of California, Riverside, Big West Conference

[Britt in GA 53]

Personally, I think the part of vacating all of those wins is in anticipation of PSU's appeal to this decision.  PSU appeals, the NCAA says "okay, we'll drop the vacating the wins penalty, and everything else stands".  This way, the NCAA has a compromise built into the judgement they handed down.

Vacating the wins is kinda silly, if you ask me, but the NCAA is trying to send a strict message that covering up severe issues will not be tolerated. 

I think those negotiations were already made.  PSU got the "Death Penalty".  PSU convinced the NCAA to stretch it out over 4 years is all.  In my opinion, PSU told the NCAA, if you do this, we will not appeal (with a pretty please and sugar on top).  The revenue for that year of football was placed to good use as an endowment for victims of child abuse.  Scholarships are gone (10 Initial, 20 Over 4 years...I think).  The Fire Sale on Players and Signed Recruits.  No bowls for 4 years (of which 2 of those weren't going to happen after defections and loss of scholarships)

[augolf1716 21,305]

I agree with you, MSG.  The forfeiture of victories is silly. It does nothing.  Jopa's rep is forever tarnished, how does removing those victories, won by the players, an effective punishment?  Fining the university and reducing the schollies punishes the school for their involvement.  Vacating wins only punishes the players that are long gone and had no involvement in the first place.

Personally, I think the part of vacating all of those wins is in anticipation of PSU's appeal to this decision.  PSU appeals, the NCAA says "okay, we'll drop the vacating the wins penalty, and everything else stands".  This way, the NCAA has a compromise built into the judgement they handed down.

Vacating the wins is kinda silly, if you ask me, but the NCAA is trying to send a strict message that covering up severe issues will not be tolerated. 

PSU can not appeal. This is what they get. No if's, and's, or but's.

correct, they signed off on it already.

Like I said 3 days ago the best thing for PSU was take whatever sanctions would be handed down sign off on them and start trying to go forward. IMO PSU would have accepted whatever the NCAA was going to give them even the death penalty. If PSU tried to fight any sanction the negative PR would have been overwhelming

[au4lyfe 0]

I'm in the camp that the NCAA has overstepped it's bounds by a ridiculous (unprecedented?) degree. No one that was responsible for the cover-up has been punished.

This is the best articles I've read on the whole mess: http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/7/23/3176792/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions-punishment-reaction

[AUWALT 10]

The Freeh report concluded their (PSU) motive was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.

This sounds like it could read in the future

The NCAA report concluded their motive(Alabama) was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.

[dpwspringer 0]

We are not all going to agree on this. It has been decided and it is what it is. It is a tough deal all the way around.

[tigeraddikt 1,619]

A jury of 12 sends Jerry to the slammer;

A jury of 1 blasts State with the hammer.

Mark Emmert = Beast.

NCAA did not give PSU the death penalty, they gave them the zombie penalty.

... and you can quote me.

I was thinking "The Mortal Wound" Penalty, but I like your Zombie Penalty much better! Props!

All joking or smart azz/clever comments aside, PSU may not want to play football under these conditions. It depends on what happens of course, but this opens the door for the program to be gutted at unprecedented levels.  They are limited to 15 initial counters (new scholarship players) for the next four years (this goes along with a 4 year post season ban).  Players can transfer out of PSU at will or they can stay on scholarship at PSU until they graduate and not play football.  If, and that if is a biggie, the existing PSU football team abandons PSU football, PSU football is screwed.  They can survive the initial counter limit as a wounded football team but not if the existing team abandons the team.  

I completely agree with this comment.  The ingenius thing about the sanctions is that it wounds the football "program" so severely with all of its compounding factors without directly "killing" it for a year or two.  Now the Big 10 is saying "no bowl money for PSU" for the duration of the penalties (4 yrs).  New coach, a recruiting nightmare going forward for a few years, no bowl money, no conference champ. game, no bowl game, $60 million fine that will greatly come from football revenue, layoffs and streamlining internally, reduced scholarships to essentially 1-AA level...PSU might as well be considered an "independent" in a couple years.  And everything immediately hinges on how many of their players jump ship.  If even a small nucleus of experienced players defect, it will reap harsh consequences on depth and leadership.  We'll see how the powers handle everything going forward at PSU, but in my opinion, this is harsher than the explicit DP; it's an implicit DP.

[FearTheTigers 0]

If I was PSU I would consider pulling the plug on the program for a few years. It's pointless to operate it under these conditions.  

They also ought to have Sandusky castrated and re-install the Joe Pa statue with Joe Pa proudly raising Sandusky's castrated pecker in the air...

[WarEagle10 77]

Here is what doesn't add up to me...

PSU has scholarship's reduced from 25 to 15.

PSU can only have 65 scholarship player's, after this year.

That math just doesn't work in my head. I guess what they are saying is PSU can sign 15 at the most, but can't go over 65 scholarship player's on the roster?

[keesler 5,928]

The Freeh report concluded their (PSU) motive was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.

This sounds like it could read in the future

The NCAA report concluded their motive(Alabama) was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.

I've been petitioning for nearly 2 years for our (AU) public relations team to shield the univeristy and our football program from negative publicity.  

I honest to God feel like our own public relations personel aren't worth their salt, let alone worth the salary that Auburn University pays them.  Our entire program gets drug through the mud on a daily basis, from the local/state media all the way to the national media.  

I've seen at least two articles that have coupled and even compared the PSU scandal with AU, and it sickens me to see it.  AU's name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence with PSU.

[98tiger1345162952 0]

I'm in the camp that the NCAA has overstepped it's bounds by a ridiculous (unprecedented?) degree. No one that was responsible for the cover-up has been punished.

This is the best articles I've read on the whole mess: http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/7/23/3176792/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions-punishment-reaction

I agree this has no impact on the core issue and the people involved. Several peoples lives and that community will be affected by this decision. Very slippery slope by the NCAA...

[tigeraddikt 1,619]

Link(s), Kees?

[rockfordpi 91]

Personally, I think the NCAA is making a huge mistake and over stepping their bounds MASSIVELY. IMO, the NCAA has no place here. They have no precedent. They have no authority. They are not within their jurisdiction (so to speak) and they are not operating within the confines of their purpose and existance as an institution at all. We have criminal courts to handle these types of matters. The NCAA is in the wrong galaxy here (not just zip code), and I cannot understand what Emmerrit is doing. At all.

PSU should fight the NCAA every step of the way on this one.

And by the way, I am not coming from a point of caring one bit what happens to PSU. I am coming from a much broader perspective of the NCAA operating WAY WAY out of its bounds in an area that has nothing to do with their actual purpose. It is a horrible idea, what they are doing and if they want to get involved with stuff like this (crimes and felonies) what type of precedent does it set, and where does it begin and end?

I agree. Crimes should be punished by the criminal justice system, damages should be awarded by the civil courts.

The NCAA should limit themselves to regulating things that give schools a competitive advantage or things done to the detriment of the student athlete (not saying molesters and those who cover for them should not be punished HARSHLY, just saying that is not the role of the NCAA).

In my mind, the NCAA just entered into the realm of government and imposed a 60 million tax on the taxpayers of that state. The powers that be may have waived their right of due process when they agreed to that, but the tax payers did not nor did any elected official do so on their behalf.

What happens in the future when the NCAA (which is not required to meet the requirements of federal due process) decides to punish a coach/school/team for something criminal and  that entity is found not guilty by the criminal justice system?

What about coaches who are involved in financial scandals (Usually such coaches are used to recruit investors because of their fame that comes from being a coach), is the NCAA going to punish schools for that?

What about Bobby Petrino? Some laws may have been broken their as well.

Again, I am NOT defending Child molesters here. I am just saying the NCAA is not a government agency and it seems that people are beginning to accept them as being one.

Hypothetical question. Supposed all the same people were involved in this crime,  but EVERYTHING in this scandal occurred off campus and at non PSU events? Should PSU have been punished?

(yes, I understand that the scandal DID occur on campus which opened the door to the NCAA, I am just trying to get into my mind where the line should/will be drawn)

Well put Rockford.....and I agree.

Chasing a rabbit here, I know Sandusky was convicted, but has anyone else in the PSU case been convicted or plead guilty of anything?

[telling tiger 156]

One person involved in the coverup is dead. Two other people involved in the coverup await their day in court. Premature to say they will not be affected, they very well could be.

Schultz and Curley.

www.statecollege.com

[keesler 5,928]

I'm in the camp that the NCAA has overstepped it's bounds by a ridiculous (unprecedented?) degree. No one that was responsible for the cover-up has been punished.

This is the best articles I've read on the whole mess: http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2012/7/23/3176792/penn-state-ncaa-sanctions-punishment-reaction

I agree this has no impact on the core issue and the people involved. Several peoples lives and that community will be affected by this decision. Very slippery slope by the NCAA...

This move by the NCAA edges their way into much more of an authoritative role, which IMO will not bode well for member institutions in the future.  The slippery slope now belongs to the member schools, as the NCAA can put their nose all up in your buisness and hand out any punishment they wish.  The NCAA/Emmert went WAY over the line with this one. 

[fortworthtiger 34]

The NCAA technically could argue that PSU did gain a competitive advantage because if this had come out in 98, while not nearly as severe as the present circumstances, it still would have rocked the football program in a negative way, especially since Sandusky was still on staff. So by covering up the issue, there was, albeit indirectly, a competitive advantage gained and more directly an obvious lack of institutional control.

[AUWALT 10]

The NCAA technically could argue that PSU did gain a competitive advantage because if this had come out in 98, while not nearly as severe as the present circumstances, it still would have rocked the football program in a negative way, especially since Sandusky was still on staff. So by covering up the issue, there was, albeit indirectly, a competitive advantage gained and more directly an obvious lack of institutional control.

There was not any lack of institutional control, there was way too much CONTROL but in the wrong direction.

[telling tiger 156]

The competitive position was maintained. Disclosing the crime would've caused some upheaval in the program and they chose to do the wrong thing.

Not about gaining an advantage in this case, it's about maintaining their position at that time.

Extraordinary circumstances led to this. I do not see the NCAA arbitrarily applying this to other programs and issues unless the circumstances are roughly the same. IMO, if they were the same, they would deserve the same actions again.

Professional league presidents have made some extraordinary decisions over the years, those same decisions have not been an issue since the initial problems were addressed.