Penn St sanctions

[meyers7]

Wonder what Meyers would take off.

Me?

 

[johnnyc]

Fact is, Kib, it denies him no legacy at all. Those games were won and everyone knows they were won. It is only mental and clerical gymnastics to deny it. That memory is something that cannot be undone and will be remembered for at least a generation and never forgotten in PA. The entire concept of rewriting the records of athletic competitions is simply ridiculous, especially, when it is not done because someone had gained an unfair competitive edge. BTW, has Mark McQuire's 70 or Barry Bonds record 73 been banned from the record book? It just doesn't work.

It all depends on who is doing the remembering Ice. There's lots of people that think Roger Maris and Hank Aaron still hold the legitimate records regardless of what's in the record book. There are also going to be a lot of people that think Eddie Robinson's record is still intact and it will actually be reinforced by the record book.

 

[Kibitzer]

A suggestion to obtain detailed information about the PSU sanctions.

Go to "Real Clear Sports," then access the "Penn State Sanctions."

What you will read is the complete and precise language of the NCAA.

To cite one example, the payment of the $60 million fine (and its admirable purpose) is to be made over five years @ $12 million each year.

The last year PSU filed a report (something connected with Title IX, I believe), they listed gross income from football at something like $73 million. Surely they can peel $12 million from that.

The mystery of how the reduction in scholarships will work is explained.

And, as the old saying goes, there is much, much, more........

 

[Kibitzer]

Fact is, Kib, it denies him no legacy at all. Those games were won and everyone knows they were won. It is only mental and clerical gymnastics to deny it. That memory is something that cannot be undone and will be remembered for at least a generation and never forgotten in PA. The entire concept of rewriting the records of athletic competitions is simply ridiculous, especially, when it is not done because someone had gained an unfair competitive edge. BTW, has Mark McQuire's 70 or Barry Bonds record 73 been banned from the record book? It just doesn't work.

We will simply have to respectfully disagree about this.

The NCAA record book now shows that Eddie Robinson and Bobby Bowden won the most games.

Go to a site called Sports Delve and access "Vacated NCAA National Championships" and you will see a list of 21 schools that won an NCAA championship but subsequently had it vacated.

USC got nailed in two different sports. USC and Arkansas each vacated two NC's. USC and Mississippi College vacated football NC's.

Then there is Chris Webber of the Michigan Fab Five and Howard Porter of Villaova.

I am sure there are others.

 

[UConnCat]

The fact they did it, apparently by mutual consent with Penn State in order to avoid legal bloodshed, doesn't mean they had the authority.

I've long said as you state, and continue to hold that view.

Here's an article from yesterday that I rather agree with.

Thanks for pointing out my past position.

Here's another thoughtful piece by Dave Zirin whose views I support.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169002/why-ncaas-sanctions-penn-state-are-just-dead-wrong#

Today marked a stomach-turning, precedent-setting and lawless turning point in the history of the NCAA. The punishment levied by Emmert was nothing less than an extra-legal, extrajudicial imposition into the affairs of a publicly funded campus. If allowed to stand, the repercussions will be felt far beyond Happy Valley.

Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no secret payments to “student-athletes,” no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit’s bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time-sheets that justify Mark Emmert’s $1.6 million salary.

What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and it should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky, the child rapist. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead, we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. As much as I can’t stand Goodell’s authoritarian, undemocratic methods, the NFL is a private corporation and his method of punishment was collectively bargained with the NFL Players Association. Emmert, heading up the so-called nonprofit NCAA, is intervening with his own personal judgment and cutting the budget of a public university. He has no right, and every school under the auspices of the NCAA should be terrified that he believes he does.

 

[Vowelguy]

He has no right, and every school under the auspices of the NCAA should be terrified that he believes he does.

Blah blah blah.

Penn St was welcome to appeal this decision, or to withdraw from the NCAA and become an NAIA school. They choose neither.

 

[UConnCat]

Blah blah blah.

Penn St was welcome to appeal this decision, or to withdraw from the NCAA and become an NAIA school. They choose neither.

Penn State entered into a consent decree so nothing to appeal. In any event, it's not the point. Penn State clearly didn't think it had the moral standing to reject the NCAA's sanctions. That doesn't make what the NCAA did lawful or right.

No worries. Mark Emmert had his Al Haig ("I'm in control here") moment.

 

[wire chief]

It has already been said that keeping Sandusky on the payroll influenced football behavior.
There are those who argue that the Nuremburg trials were illegal too, but we're real glad they happened. You who are quibbling about the NCAA decision wrongly equate law with ethics. To me this is (finally) the NCAA doing a far, far better thing than it has ever done before.

 

[msf22b]

I'm a little late to the party, today.

But having anticipated that the NCAA would feel compelled to jump into this morass, I am not surprised by today's news.
They had to do something major to justify their existence and a way had to be found for the other College Prez' to
pile-on

Ice's 10:13 post, rightly questions some of the consequences. Among them: Why the rush?

Joseph Ellis describes the slow-motion revolution (contradiction in terms) that produced the Declaration of Independence. John Adams waited, so could have the NCAA. The only possible reason I can conjure up for haste is since football is to be played; let's deplete the squad with mass transfers, so that the team becomes a laughing stock and that, that humiliation would somehow be beneficial to the healing.

There is also a feeling of semi-finality that Ice has eloquently articulated; the University, Industrial Complex, has spoken. No need to go much further; certainly not Governor (s), boards, Police, DA's office etc.

For a strident view, making other arguments for judicial injustice, check out the Guardian (Manchester)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/23/ncaa-penn-state-sanctions.

Our new member, Big Fan also makes a convincing point. that has been largely overlooked: How can the University be faulted when the 1998 incident was reported to the Police, was investigated and dropped by the DA's office.
Hard to fault the University there unless they "got" to higher authority. Anything's possible, but Freeh disclosed no evidence of that.

Indeed, Freeh seems to conclude points, not completely collaborated by the evidence he presented.
I suspect that that his conclusions may be sound but that collaborating documentation included areas that he decided to exclude to the public at this point for reasons perhaps related to the upcoming criminal proceedings (please excuse the semi-illegal, hypothesizing).

The whole white-wash of today, leaves a very bad taste.

 

[Duncan Idaho]

60MM fine over 5 years is 12MM/year They have about 75k undergrads including branches, thats an extra $160 per undergrad/year. Another 15k as grad students.

 

[Vowelguy]

Why the rush?

What rush?
Emmert indicated that the Freeh report is far more detailed/comprehensive than what the NCAA could put together. Why wait?

There's something to be said for not allowing things to draw out extensively (which encourages skepticism), and also removing uncertainty. For one, current and future FB players now can begin to plan their futures.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

The longest lasting punishment for Penn State will the absolute horror which many image when the University is mentioned.

In the meantime, Justice will not be delayed or denied.

 

[msf22b]

Ex-President Spanier is upping the ante with a letter to the Penn State Board. Among the relevtions: he was an abused child!
http://espn.go.com/college-foo...-board-trustees

 

[OneTrickPony]

Ex-President Spanier is upping the ante with a letter to the Penn State Board. Among the relevtions: he was an abused child!
http://espn.go.com/college-foo...-board-trustees

 

[JS]

Penn State entered into a consent decree so nothing to appeal. In any event, it's not the point. Penn State clearly didn't think it had the moral standing to reject the NCAA's sanctions. That doesn't make what the NCAA did lawful or right.

I have a little different take.

I think this wasn't so much a matter of moral standing as a cold-blooded negotiation of a settlement in order to avoid, from both parties' points of view, the undesirable consequences of litigation. The NCAA has not "imposed" sanctions. It has used the threat of doing so to extract the settlement. The interests of the parties are as follows:

1. Penn State had an interest in accepting some strong medicine because, for several reasons, it wants to get this part of its problems behind it as soon as possible. But if NCAA had unilaterally tried to impose something unacceptable, it would've made litigation worth Penn State's while. As in any such negotiation, terms were found that would be acceptable to both sides without anyone being pushed over the brink.

2. From NCAA's point of view, it gets the posture it wants -- as Kibitzer has maintained all along, the status of being seen to have "done something" and done it promptly. And it avoids the very real possibility of losing in litigation for its ultra vires action. If it sought, for example, the "death penalty," in my view it would've faced a coalition of plaintiffs with a very good case for an injunction against the sanctions. Then it could end up achieving nothing, while looking not only toothless but quixotic.

So I can see how both parties readily came to the table.

 

[Icebear]

We will simply have to respectfully disagree about this.

The NCAA record book now shows that Eddie Robinson and Bobby Bowden won the most games.

Go to a site called Sports Delve and access "Vacated NCAA National Championships" and you will see a list of 21 schools that won an NCAA championship but subsequently had it vacated.

USC got nailed in two different sports. USC and Arkansas each vacated two NC's. USC and Mississippi College vacated football NC's.

Then there is Chris Webber of the Michigan Fab Five and Howard Porter of Villaova.

I am sure there are others.

I am talking the public consciousness, Kib. Not ink that only the true fanatic reads.

Adan Taliaferro tweeted today, "NCAA says games didn't exist..I got the metal plate in my neck to prove it did." He almost died on the football field at Ohio State. His personal story back is epic and is now cheapened by the NCAA.

 

[Icebear]

I have a little different take.

I think this wasn't so much a matter of moral standing as a cold-blooded negotiation of a settlement in order to avoid, from both parties' points of view, the undesirable consequences of litigation. The NCAA has not "imposed" sanctions. It has used the threat of doing so to extract the settlement. The interests of the parties are as follows:

1. Penn State had an interest in accepting some strong medicine because, for several reasons, it wants to get this part of its problems behind it as soon as possible. But if NCAA had unilaterally tried to impose something unacceptable, it would've made litigation worth Penn State's while. As in any such negotiation, terms were found that would be acceptable to both sides without anyone being pushed over the brink.

2. From NCAA's point of view, it gets the posture it wants -- as Kibitzer has maintained all along, the status of being seen to have "done something" and done it promptly. And it avoids the very real possibility of losing in litigation for its ultra vires action. If it sought, for example, the "death penalty," in my view it would've faced a coalition of plaintiffs with a very good case for an injunction against the sanctions. Then it could end up achieving nothing, while looking not only toothless but quixotic.



So I can see how both parties readily came to the table.

JS, I completely agree with you in all of this it is all posturing and about face saving for the NCAA and the PSU administration and Board of Trustees. It is all more of the very thing that created the very rpoblem in the first place.

 

[Icebear]

Here's another thoughtful piece by Dave Zirin whose views I support.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169002/why-ncaas-sanctions-penn-state-are-just-dead-wrong#

Today marked a stomach-turning, precedent-setting and lawless turning point in the history of the NCAA. The punishment levied by Emmert was nothing less than an extra-legal, extrajudicial imposition into the affairs of a publicly funded campus. If allowed to stand, the repercussions will be felt far beyond Happy Valley.

Take a step back from the hysteria and just think about what took place: Penn State committed no violations of any NCAA bylaws. There were no secret payments to “student-athletes,” no cheating on tests, no improper phone calls, no using cream cheese instead of butter on a recruit’s bagel, or any of the Byzantine minutiae that fills the time-sheets that justify Mark Emmert’s $1.6 million salary.

What Penn State did was commit horrific violations of criminal and civil laws, and it should pay every possible price for shielding Sandusky, the child rapist. This is why we have a society with civil and criminal courts. Instead, we have Mark Emmert inserting himself in a criminal matter and acting as judge, jury and executioner, in the style of NFL commissioner Roger Goodell. As much as I can’t stand Goodell’s authoritarian, undemocratic methods, the NFL is a private corporation and his method of punishment was collectively bargained with the NFL Players Association. Emmert, heading up the so-called nonprofit NCAA, is intervening with his own personal judgment and cutting the budget of a public university. He has no right, and every school under the auspices of the NCAA should be terrified that he believes he does.

Zirin is spot on. Above anything else one has to ask oneself, "why the rush?"

 

[Icebear]

What rush?
Emmert indicated that the Freeh report is far more detailed/comprehensive than what the NCAA could put together. Why wait?

There's something to be said for not allowing things to draw out extensively (which encourages skepticism), and also removing uncertainty. For one, current and future FB players now can begin to plan their futures.

Because there were still large unanswered questions within the Freeh report and blanket suppositions with no facts in it to back them.

 

[VAUConnFan]

One lesson that needs to be taken from all of this is that when a university allows a coach to become the most powerful individual on campus it loses any semblance of "institutional control".

A university does not necessarily allow a coach to become the most powerful individual on campus. It happens as a result of achievements, popularity, alumni, and other factors. Joe Paterno and Penn State Football drew a lot of money and attention to Penn State University; increased admission applications and endowments allows institutions to upgrade academic facilities, standards, research, and attract top educators and administrators.

 

[Bestiarius]

I think the NCAA did a great job. It wasn't a legal issue. It's a moral one. Each of the sanctions will make people think twice about doing anything that places sports above all else.

There was much mention of the Freeh report but not so much regarding the testimony during the Sandusky trial. Could there have been info there that influenced Penn State's quick agreement with the punishment?

All the talk about Joe Pa not knowing anything. It just didn't make sense to me. I believe the Trustees thought there could be many witnesses in Happy Valley that could make Joe look bad during upcoming trials.

As SMU said, the worse punishment was not knowing what the NCAA would do for two years. By agreeing to the sanctions, Penn State removed the uncertainty.

Although harsh, very few innocents were hurt. PSU will still play games, and perhaps schools that formerly didn't get a shot at a bowl bid will have their day in the sun.

 

[VAUConnFan]

To answer all three as best as I can:

• JS (who is a lawyer) and I disagreed on this. Our positions became moot when NCAA President Emmert made it clear that these sanctions were issued under the heading of a consent decree, meaning PSU accepted what the NCAA was doing.
• Vacating the victories denies Paterno one of his cherished legacies, most total wins. Since he is dead, they can't haul him into court with Shultz and Curley, so this made sense. Be reminded that I was an advocate of this particular ppunishment.
• The money comes from the football program. Money has continued to flow in after the Sandusky arrest, and PSU surely figures that they can pony up or they would have resisted the consent decree.

I am confident my answers are verifiable but please correct me if I am mistaken.

Thank you Kibitzer.
I believe Penn State made a huge mistake accepting the consent decree if only because it establishes a very bad precedent.
We will have to agree to disagree about the vacated victories. Again, because there were no NCAA violations in play. Another bad precedent.
Regardless of where the money comes from, the ruling on that money is problematic. Again the NCAA issued the fine in a case in which they have no authority; Bad precedent Number 3.

On this issue, I find myself in a rare cabal with Boneyarders Icebear, JS, and Meyers. Heck, that could be still another bad precedent.

 

[JS]

On this issue, I find myself in a rare cabal with Boneyarders Icebear, JS, and Meyers. Heck, that could be still another bad precedent.

We'll teach you the secret handshake.

 

[Icebear]

We'll teach you the secret handshake.

That's paw shake for some.