Jeff Jacobs article on PSU punishment.

[metsfan2323]

The last two paragraphs left me confused. I don't get his point about murder. He does realize Penn State is being penalized for the cover-up right? Has there been a murder cover-up by a school that I missed?

http://www.courant.com/sports/college/hc-jacobs-penn-state-column-0724-20120724,0,1389881.column

"There is a feeling among NCAA leaders that the Sandusky case is so heinous and the coverup so unusual nothing again will rise to this level of depravity. So maybe the NCAA leaders could tip-toe up to this uniquely sickening ordeal, slam a school in the name of greater righteousness and everyone comes out all the better.

But what about murder? What Sandusky did is the grossest of gross. Yet in my religious background, and in my soul, murder is the worst sin a man can commit. We are deluding ourselves if we believe murder won't happen again in college sports. It happened at Baylor with basketball. It happened when a male lacrosse player killed a female lacrosse player at Virginia. Surely, there are significant criminal, even major homicide cases in the future of the NCAA. Ethical and moral questions will be raised. How will the NCAA react? How should it react? I want to believe the NCAA will be remembered for doing something swift and just on Monday, but I would not rest easy on this one."

 

[metsfan2323]

Sorry, I didn't mean to put this in the recruiting forum.

 

[businesslawyer]

There is no question that the NCAA is opening itself up to criticism in the future by taking these acts now. But to be clear, it's not about how they would react to murder -- it's how they would react to a school covering up a murder to protect its athletic programs.

PSU is not being punished because Sandusky was a pedophile rapist. It is being punished because it covered up his crimes to protect its football program.

 

[metsfan2323]

There is no question that the NCAA is opening itself up to criticism in the future by taking these acts now. But to be clear, it's not about how they would react to murder -- it's how they would react to a school covering up a murder to protect its athletic programs.

PSU is not being punished because Sandusky was a pedophile rapist. It is being punished because it covered up his crimes to protect its football program.

I agree, I just thought it was a weird place for Jacobs to go. Has there been a lot of athletic department murder cover-ups? He might as well have suggested what is the NCAA going to do when a school covers-up athletic department dealings with foreign terrorists.

 

[UConnDan97]

The last two paragraphs left me confused.

It's Jeff Jacobs. Every paragraph should leave you confused...

 

[jrazz12]

Oh holy hell, there are so many morons writing about this and commenting about this that have no idea what they're talking about and have suspended all rules of logic in doing so.

BL, and most sane people, are right on about this. But some very intelligent people, including Jay Bilas and many having any association with Penn State, are completely missing the forest through the trees.

For the millionth time, it's about the cover up, and the completely misguided and sometimes criminal priorities and culture that emanate from the football program there.

The truly upsetting thing is that this punishment was designed to adjust that mindset, and from most accounts thus far, has only created a "us against the world, we will overcome this" mindset in happy valley. It's been sad to watch

 

[dsturdy5]

The last two paragraphs left me confused. I don't get his point about murder. He does realize Penn State is being penalized for the cover-up right? Has there been a murder cover-up by a school that I missed?



"But what about murder? What Sandusky did is the grossest of gross. Yet in my religious background, and in my soul, murder is the worst sin a man can commit. We are deluding ourselves if we believe murder won't happen again in college sports. It happened at Baylor with basketball. It happened when a male lacrosse player killed a female lacrosse player at Virginia. Surely, there are significant criminal, even major homicide cases in the future of the NCAA. Ethical and moral questions will be raised. How will the NCAA react? How should it react? I want to believe the NCAA will be remembered for doing something swift and just on Monday, but I would not rest easy on this one."

He tells you, Baylor men's basketball.

 

[gioff23]

let me take a stab. I think his point was differnt than some are suggesting. What the NCAA did was unprecedented, both in terms of the what and the how. Everyone knows what is being punished, there is no confusion there (maybe some denial, but no confusion). Now, think of the last time a program was brought to its knees for something outside of the NCAA rule book. If you can think of any examples, let me know. And think of the last time it was done with this speed, while the process was not yet complete, and w/o the inclusion of the infractions committee. You can't.

Please don't bring in what that scumbag was found guilty of doing, we all know what he did was heinous. But has the NCAA opened Pandora's Box? JJ's refernce to murder is whether the criminal activity that sparked the NCAA to act is limited to sexual criminal activity or whether a school that knows of criminal activity in its athletics program and turns a blind eye will face the NCAA wrath. The murder example may be far fetched, but programs like Miami and UNC should be shaking in fear because at the root of allegations dogging them are bad acts that were done to protect and promote the athletic program, at the expense of education (and knowing kids are getting tax-free money from boosters to play sports and doing nothing is criminal) .

Don't bring in the fairness of the verdict; the only thing to think about is what exactly is the NCAA doing and what precedent have they set.

 

[businesslawyer]

let me take a stab. I think his point was differnt than some are suggesting. What the NCAA did was unprecedented, both in terms of the what and the how. Everyone knows what is being punished, there is no confusion there (maybe some denial, but no confusion). Now, think of the last time a program was brought to its knees for something outside of the NCAA rule book. If you can think of any examples, let me know. And think of the last time it was done with this speed, while the process was not yet complete, and w/o the inclusion of the infractions committee. You can't.

Please don't bring in what that scumbag was found guilty of doing, we all know what he did was heinous. But has the NCAA opened Pandora's Box? JJ's refernce to murder is whether the criminal activity that sparked the NCAA to act is limited to sexual criminal activity or whether a school that knows of criminal activity in its athletics program and turns a blind eye will face the NCAA wrath. The murder example may be far fetched, but programs like Miami and UNC should be shaking in fear because at the root of allegations dogging them are bad acts that were done to protect and promote the athletic program, at the expense of education (and knowing kids are getting tax-free money from boosters to play sports and doing nothing is criminal) .

Don't bring in the fairness of the verdict; the only thing to think about is what exactly is the NCAA doing and what precedent have they set.

Personally, I would have preferred the NCAA act at its slower, more usual speed. That having been said, the cover up here was a violent crime that was likely to be recurring again and again if it wasn't stopped. In the Baylor, or UVA case, if there was a cover up this clear and thorough, was there also a worry that other people would be murdered in the future because the school covered up the first act? This was a unique situation (although that is certainly not a guaranty that it or something like it won't happen again).

 

[UConnDan97]

Now, think of the last time a program was brought to its knees for something outside of the NCAA rule book.

Even if you take out whatever morality clauses there are in the NCAA handbook; if this isn't the clearest and biggest example of "lack of institutional control", then I don't know what is! Here is the pdf file on "lack of institutional control" as defined by the NCAA (as provided by the Pac-12):

http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

Here are the only cases where it does NOT constitute that:


B. VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
be due to a lack of institutional control:
• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

So it seems clear to me that this is in fact within the NCAA's jurisdiction.

 

[huskymedic]

Personally, I would have preferred the NCAA act at its slower, more usual speed. That having been said, the cover up here was a violent crime that was likely to be recurring again and again if it wasn't stopped. In the Baylor, or UVA case, if there was a cover up this clear and thorough, was there also a worry that other people would be murdered in the future because the school covered up the first act? This was a unique situation (although that is certainly not a guaranty that it or something like it won't happen again).

Baylor was significantly different then UVA. Baylor was more involved than "just murder" - there was an alleged cover-up, lying to NCAA and repeat violations. I know it's Wiki but it sums it up a bit better than a few articles I read.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baylor_University_basketball_scandal

 

[metsfan2323]

I think the Baylor case is very different then the Sandusky case.

After reading the wiki article it seems that the murder at Baylor led to a proper murder investigation which led to NCAA violations being revealed. There was no attempt to cover-up the murder itself.

Now if the police investigated Sandusky in 1998 at that led somehow to PSU NCAA violations being revealed then the two cases would be similar.

I still wonder if JoePA and PSU were hiding something (other then Sandusky) in 1998 causing them to cover-up Sandusky, THAT would be explosive news. Sometimes a small cover-up leads to a bigger cover-up, It's like a cover-up Ponzy scheme. I'm sure there are intrepid reporters looking to write the tell all book that would expose something along those lines.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

Jeff Jacobs "But what about murder? What Sandusky did is the grossest of gross. Yet in my religious background, and in my soul, murder is the worst sin a man can commit."

WRONG.

What Sandusky did is worse and it's not even close in my book.

The fact that JoeFraud and company covered it up is equally as despicable to me.

I do agree that the NCAA went overboard and should have waited until the criminal trial was completed before making such a harsh decision. Though, from what I understand, the criminal trial will just confirm what we suspect.

 

[whaler11]

WRONG.

What Sandusky did is worse and it's not even close in my book.

The fact that JoeFraud and company covered it up is equally as despicable to me.

I do agree that the NCAA went overboard and should have waited until the criminal trial was completed before making such a harsh decision. Though, from what I understand, the criminal trial will just confirm what we suspect.

So if Sandusky had just killed the kids it wouldn't be worse? I think even the kids would disagree.

 

[ConnHuskBask]

So if Sandusky had just killed the kids it wouldn't be worse? I think even the kids would disagree.

I guess we're getting into semantics here, but I would still say what Sandusky did is just as bad, but luckily the kids still have their lives unlike the kids from the theater shooting.

I was more so responding to 'murder' in the sense of grown men killing each other in a conflict, not a grown man killing innocent children. That is what I meant, by "it's not even close in my book".

 

[gioff23]

Even if you take out whatever morality clauses there are in the NCAA handbook; if this isn't the clearest and biggest example of "lack of institutional control", then I don't know what is! Here is the pdf file on "lack of institutional control" as defined by the NCAA (as provided by the Pac-12):

http://compliance.pac-12.org/thetools/instctl.pdf

Here are the only cases where it does NOT constitute that:


B. VIOLATIONS THAT DO NOT RESULT FROM A LACK OF INSTITUTIONAL CONTROL.
An institution cannot be expected to control the actions of every individual who is in some way
connected with its athletics program. The deliberate or inadvertent violation of a rule by an
individual who is not in charge of compliance with rules that are violated will not be considered to
be due to a lack of institutional control:
• if adequate compliance measures exist;
• if they are appropriately conveyed to those who need to be aware of them;
• if they are monitored to ensure that such measures are being followed; and
• if, on learning that a violation has occurred, the institution takes swift action.

So it seems clear to me that this is in fact within the NCAA's jurisdiction.

Look, I am not hear to defend PSU, I am not. I was trying to explain JJ's point. But the violation that requires swift action is a violation of NCAA rules, not a violation of law. We can argue all day long over semantics, but the NCAA went beyond its rule book for the first time ever and did so without any sort of review - so the point remains, what's next?

 

[uconndogs]

I'm more and more convinced that PSU and the NCAA blew this. Retribution is seldom a solution to anything and these sanctions keep PSU on the field and television this fall. The PR will be awful and I can't even begin to imagine what road games will be like for that team and the fanbase that travels with them. Had they stayed off the field this season the University could have focused on truly changing the insular culture and let the media attention to all this die down. At the end of the day, the goal should be for PSU to be a better institution and I just don't see where these sanctions accomplish that. I'm actually wondering if the football program and its following doesn't dig in and remain just as insular (an us against the world mentality).

Just my two cents.

 

[UConnDan97]

Look, I am not hear to defend PSU, I am not. I was trying to explain JJ's point. But the violation that requires swift action is a violation of NCAA rules, not a violation of law. We can argue all day long over semantics, but the NCAA went beyond its rule book for the first time ever and did so without any sort of review - so the point remains, what's next?

The point doesn't remain, because we don't agree on the premise! I don't believe that it was beyond the scope of the NCAA, and clearly (and more importantly), Penn State doesn't believe that it was beyond the scope of the NCAA. If they did, the state of Pennsylvania would have had a fleet of lawyers on their doorstep, simply due to the 60 million dollar penalty that the state will have to pay.

But I don't want to put you in a position to have to defend PSU in order to get your answer of "what's next?", so I will cease to comment on it and let the Boneyard crowd go to it.

 

[gioff23]

The premise is JJ's article; you are spouting on about a conclusion. Does PSU deserve to be punished? YES! But that's not a premise, it's a conclusion.

This action is beyond the scope of the NCAA's rulebook, period. If it were in the rulebook, it would have gone to the infractions committee for review, period. Clearly, this is not in the rulebook. This is differnt - so what other differnces should the NCAA legislate - UNC? Miami? Baylor? Auburn?

Hypothetically, what do you tomorrow when you wake up and learn Emmert has decided JC is running a program that puts BB ahead of the school and the program needs to be shut down? You ok with that? If not, why? Is it because that while some of the kids committed crimes, there was no cover up? Is it because the crimes (theft, drugs) didn't rise to the level of child sexual abuse?

 

[UConnDan97]

The premise is JJ's article; you are spouting on about a conclusion. Does PSU deserve to be punished? YES! But that's not a premise, it's a conclusion.

This action is beyond the scope of the NCAA's rulebook, period. If it were in the rulebook, it would have gone to the infractions committee for review, period. Clearly, this is not in the rulebook. This is differnt - so what other differnces should the NCAA legislate - UNC? Miami? Baylor? Auburn?

Hypothetically, what do you tomorrow when you wake up and learn Emmert has decided JC is running a program that puts BB ahead of the school and the program needs to be shut down? You ok with that? If not, why? Is it because that while some of the kids committed crimes, there was no cover up? Is it because the crimes (theft, drugs) didn't rise to the level of child sexual abuse?

The premise was whether or not NCAA was within their rights to punish PSU for the infraction, and that is where I disagree with you (as does PSU and the NCAA rulebook, by the way).

Whether or not the NCAA chooses to punish the other institutions (Miami, Baylor, Auburn, etc.) is not what is being discussed. The discussion is about their jurisdiction. Does the lack of NCAA punishments for the other situations mean that they are hypocritical? Yes. But who here didn't already know that??

 

[freescooter]

There is no question that the NCAA is opening itself up to criticism in the future by taking these acts now. But to be clear, it's not about how they would react to murder -- it's how they would react to a school covering up a murder to protect its athletic programs.

PSU is not being punished because Sandusky was a pedophile rapist. It is being punished because it covered up his crimes to protect its football program.

I agree with you. That part was a strange direction in which to go, I think. If the the athletic department at the University of Southern North Carolina covered up a murder, allowed the murder to bring his victims into the locker room, and kept doing it for over a decade to protect the football program, I would hope that the program would be shuttered, perhaps permanently. But that isn't what happened at Penn State, not is it what happened at either Baylor or Virginia. It was just a strange tangent.

 

[freescooter]

The premise is JJ's article; you are spouting on about a conclusion. Does PSU deserve to be punished? YES! But that's not a premise, it's a conclusion.

This action is beyond the scope of the NCAA's rulebook, period. If it were in the rulebook, it would have gone to the infractions committee for review, period. Clearly, this is not in the rulebook. This is differnt - so what other differnces should the NCAA legislate - UNC? Miami? Baylor? Auburn?

Hypothetically, what do you tomorrow when you wake up and learn Emmert has decided JC is running a program that puts BB ahead of the school and the program needs to be shut down? You ok with that? If not, why? Is it because that while some of the kids committed crimes, there was no cover up? Is it because the crimes (theft, drugs) didn't rise to the level of child sexual abuse?

If it is proven that Calhoun knew about the crimes, kept the information away from the proper authorities, as did Manuel and Susan Herbst, I don't think I'd oppose the NCAA action. But you are forgetting, or ignoring that Penn State agreed not to contest the NCAA action. In a sense, for them having the NCAA come in and ban them from the post season, take away scholarships and so on was actually helpful. Can you imagine if the Penn State Board of Trustees, or the University president had taken comparable actions? They rioted in Happy Valley when Joe Paterno was fired. Had Penn State demanded hearings and all that,and contested this, I suspect that A. the NCAA would have acted much more deliberately, and B. ultimately suspended the program for a year. But it was in everyone's interests for this to be worked out as it was worked out. Penn State keeps football, if at a possible somewhat reduced level,and they can claim they've paid their debt, the NCAA gets to flex its moral muscle. And in a sense it gets everyone off the hook. Win-Win.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I'll be blunt. If this happened in our men's basketball program, I'd call for the death penalty and would want Gampel burned to the ground.

 

[Jarhead_1775]

I'll be blunt. If this happened in our men's basketball program, I'd call for the death penalty and would want Gampel burned to the ground.

I have to agree. I hadn't thought about it to this point, but if I heard those same things about those 3 people, whom are equivalents to the people involved in the PSU scandal, I'd be thoroughly disgusted with the entire process. I can't imagine being gung ho about some friggin GAMES in light of what went on. Well put, Jimmy.