Penn St sanctions

[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.

 

[Icebear]

Here in PA the feel to this whole thing is very different. Not in regard to the penalties which many simply feel premature and a whole new nest of vipers for the NCAA in the future. Rather the feeling one of why this rush and what is getting swept under the rug. There is growing distrust of Rodney Ericson and the Trustees and a feeling that this all is just more of the same. Few that have known Joe personally recognize the images with which he was portrayed. Most feel the actions today only plays into the hands of those who want to declare it closed and done. To do that will not help anyone and certainly will not produce justice.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

Here in PA the feel to this whole thing is very different. Not in regard to the penalties which many simply feel premature and a whole new nest of vipers for the NCAA in the future. Rather the feeling one of why this rush and what is getting swept under the rug. There is growing distrust of Rodney Ericson and the Trustees and a feeling that this all is just more of the same. Few that have known Joe personally recognize the images with which he was portrayed. Most feel the actions today only plays into the hands of those who want to declare it closed and done. To do that will not help anyone and certainly will not produce justice.

Anything "swept under the rug "will be covered and covered and recovered in the civil cases...my take is any rush has been at least partially fueled by Penn State U…no one wants it over and done more than that institution.

I am not surprised that “PA” has a particular and different view of the process and events…IMO it was and is this same culture (of PSU, PA) that structured the history of coverup events.

 

[TDiNozzo]

I like the fact they looked out for current players... in one report the NCAA is looking into letting other colleges expand their scholarship limit to make room for any transfers that want to leave, then get a lower number the following year to make it a correct number of scholarships again.

 

[Ouremblem]

It's pretty clear the bulk of America has not read the actual reports or followed the facts of this case. The NCAA has no business doing this and it spells problems in the future for what they feel they can or cannot control.

As an example the 1998 incident was reported to the police and the District Attorney and it was the DA, not Penn State decided not to procesute for lack of evidence. BTW this victim has never been identified or come forward.

The 2001 or whenever it was since the testimony never got an exact date - again the victim has never been identified or come forward and these charges were the ones the jury did not convict Sandusky of during the trial because of lack of evidence. The rest of the crimes did not occure on the Penn State campus. He was not an employee of the university during that time so what happens if an English proffessor comits a crime in the future - does the NCAA have juristiction over that too?

This is a crimminal matter and the courts will decide whos' guilty or not. In fact the trials of purgery against the AD and VP haven't even taken place. With Paterno dead - what happens if they are found not guilty. The NCAA ends up creating sanctions where no crimes were committed by University employees and therefore there are no NCAA rules broken.

This is not meant to dimish the crimes commited by Sandusky or the harm done to the victims - but he is in jail for life and the victims have yet to have their day in court for civil liabilities where this should be settled or recieve a settlement similar to what the Catholic church has had to do for many similar crimes. But the NCAA getting involved is a very dangerous precident.

Hi Big!
You make a VERY good point in that the DA did NOT go forward in prosecuting Sandusky when he could have very easily done so. Was Paterno supposed to go outside his campus chain of command to the press? He could have been fired, and if the police weren't going forward with what they had, using Mr Freeh's own perverse logic, if I'm Joe Pa I think it was "reasonable to assume" there wasn't enough in the chargers for him to run to the press if the DA wasn't going forward in prosecuting him. This nonsense of using "it is reasonable to assume" logic is outragious! Was Joe Pa even privey to the evidence the DA had on Sandusky or was the file sealed when the DA decided not to go forward? He can't fire Sandusky on rumors. I just don't buy this nonsense that Paterno covered up so henious a crime. He could have EASILY found another defensive coordinator. Slander is a serious offense too. Try accusing someone of what Sandusky did in public without proper documentation.

 

[Icebear]

Anything "swept under the rug "will be covered and covered and recovered in the civil cases...my take is any rush has been at least partially fueled by Penn State U…no one wants it over and done more than that institution.

I am not surprised that “PA” has a particular and different view of the process and events…IMO it was and is this same culture (of PSU, PA) that structured the history of coverup events.

People here are as livid as anyone. In point of fact, without a change of venue they were capable of listening to and judging the testimony to find Jerry Sandusky quite guilty. It was a grand jury of that community that brought charges so that it could be tried. The community did not promulgate the circumstances that led to this situation, 2-4 individuals did on campus and a similar number in the State College Police and DA's office and those involved were not the same ones involved in 1998 and 2001 except for two people at the center. Both former President Spanier and former university general counsel have challenged the Freeh report on the facts, not opinion, facts.

You are correct that PSU wants this done very quickly and that is why they agreed so quickly to these record sanctions.

Freeh's report is inconsistent in this one thing alone, it paints a picture of Joe as someone who cast a shadow over everything on campus to have his way or at least the Athletic Department. It criticizes this as inappropriate, as it is or at least would be. It then wants him to have used that very position or power to have violated PA law and step over the limits and to have done more.

PSU is very culpable for or in a number of things.
1) They did not provide Clery Act training as required by law through out every department and across the whole student body.
2) They did not have a proper system of checks and balances and accountability anywhere within the university structure not just the athletic department.
3) Two people clearly lay at the center of all of this again and again. Beyond them it is very unclear if and what anyone else knew including President Spanier and JoePA. The lack of clear accountability for these two is at the heart of the events of any "cover up."
4) In many ways JoePA was more of an icon off campus and in the media than on and in the community. Joe was far more known as a person in the community than any other major college football coach. He was not afraid to offer his opinion but outside of the football program but among locals he was not considered someone who threw around his. He was beloved locally but an icon nationally. People here knew a human being, folks at distance knew an image. There were forces within the school and on the Board resented Joe's status. Many local people feel that Joe is being exploited now to the benefit of others.

Remember Freeh identified exactly two places where "Joe" had an opportunity to do something about Sandusky. In 1998 when the DA chose not to pursue charges because there was sufficient doubt anything had occurred and in 2001 when Joe fulfilled the PA rule of law, knowingly or unknowingly, and instead of passing on only second hand knowledge put the head of the department (as per PA law) in contact with Mike McQueary the eyewitness and backed off (as per PA training for educators as mandated reporters). Curley and Schultz then had the full charge of responsibility.

5) No complete records exist of any of the communications with Joe. We do not know what communication took place between Curley and Joe. Policy needs to address this type of lapse. It is known locally that sometimes Joe was kept in the dark about things rather than involving him in every detail. He was 74 in 2001. Whether in the guise of helping to manage his workload or because others didn't want him involved, it happened.

 

[ThisJustIn]

I'm intrigued by all the concern expressed for the athletes, the "innocents." While it's admirable, it also opens up the road to "don't punish the perpetrator because the innocent will get hurt." (DUI - "But I'm the bread winner. I need my car so I can earn enough money.")

There are always innocents hurt by the unethical and illegal actions of the few - who was/is worried about the Catholic nuns, teachers and students who've had schools and parishes closed because of the fines the Church has been forced to pay? Not everyone was "guilty" in the financial fiasco. Not everyone was guilty in the drug trials lies. Not everyone was guilty in the mortgage mess. But, the ramifications impacted an exponential number of people.

Seems to me we're taking more care of these folks -- because they're athletes -- than we are of the other folks, thereby continuing the culture of "Sport as King."

 

[Vowelguy]

I'm intrigued by all the concern expressed for the athletes, the "innocents." While it's admirable, it also opens up the road to "don't punish the perpetrator because the innocent will get hurt." (DUI - "But I'm the bread winner. I need my car so I can earn enough money.")

There are always innocents hurt by the unethical and illegal actions of the few - who was/is worried about the Catholic nuns, teachers and students who've had schools and parishes closed because of the fines the Church has been forced to pay? Not everyone was "guilty" in the financial fiasco. Not everyone was guilty in the drug trials lies. Not everyone was guilty in the mortgage mess. But, the ramifications impacted an exponential number of people.

Seems to me we're taking more care of these folks -- because they're athletes -- than we are of the other folks, thereby continuing the culture of "Sport as King."

Amen, sister.

 

[Ozzie Nelson]

People here are as livid as anyone. In point of fact, without a change of venue they were capable of listening to and judging the testimony to find Jerry Sandusky quite guilty. It was a grand jury of that community that brought charges so that it could be tried. The community did not promulgate the circumstances that led to this situation, 2-4 individuals did on campus and a similar number in the State College Police and DA's office and those involved were not the same ones involved in 1998 and 2001 except for two people at the center. Both former President Spanier and former university general counsel have challenged the Freeh report on the facts, not opinion, facts.

You are correct that PSU wants this done very quickly and that is why they agreed so quickly to these record sanctions.

Freeh's report is inconsistent in this one thing alone, it paints a picture of Joe as someone who cast a shadow over everything on campus to have his way or at least the Athletic Department. It criticizes this as inappropriate, as it is or at least would be. It then wants him to have used that very position or power to have violated PA law and step over the limits and to have done more.

PSU is very culpable for or in a number of things.
1) They did not provide Clery Act training as required by law through out every department and across the whole student body.
2) They did not have a proper system of checks and balances and accountability anywhere within the university structure not just the athletic department.
3) Two people clearly lay at the center of all of this again and again. Beyond them it is very unclear if and what anyone else knew including President Spanier and JoePA. The lack of clear accountability for these two is at the heart of the events of any "cover up."
4) In many ways JoePA was more of an icon off campus and in the media than on and in the community. Joe was far more known as a person in the community than any other major college football coach. He was not afraid to offer his opinion but outside of the football program but among locals he was not considered someone who threw around his. He was beloved locally but an icon nationally. People here knew a human being, folks at distance knew an image. There were forces within the school and on the Board resented Joe's status. Many local people feel that Joe is being exploited now to the benefit of others.

Remember Freeh identified exactly two places where "Joe" had an opportunity to do something about Sandusky. In 1998 when the DA chose not to pursue charges because there was sufficient doubt anything had occurred and in 2001 when Joe fulfilled the PA rule of law, knowingly or unknowingly, and instead of passing on only second hand knowledge put the head of the department (as per PA law) in contact with Mike McQueary the eyewitness and backed off (as per PA training for educators as mandated reporters). Curley and Schultz then had the full charge of responsibility.

5) No complete records exist of any of the communications with Joe. We do not know what communication took place between Curley and Joe. Policy needs to address this type of lapse. It is known locally that sometimes Joe was kept in the dark about things rather than involving him in every detail. He was 74 in 2001. Whether in the guise of helping to manage his workload or because others didn't want him involved, it happened.

Ice…well thought post.

For me, the Penn State events are as easy to understand as those similarly surrounding the Catholic Church….sexual abuse was enabled, and those in power covered it up to protect themselves and their institution.

I leave the legal judgment and retribution to others. To me, the bell is rung.

 

[Icebear]

Ice…well thought post.

For me, the Penn State events are as easy to understand as those similarly surrounding the Catholic Church….sexual abuse was enabled, and those in power covered it up to protect themselves and their institution.

I leave the legal judgment and retribution to others. To me, the bell is rung.

I agree and I think that a certain amount of energy and animus that is being generated because people have been frustrated and enraged for so long by the endless procession of cases of child abuse within the church and the clearly institutionalized manner in which priests were transferred and moved about to hide the problem is all now directed at PSU.

 

[Icebear]

I'm intrigued by all the concern expressed for the athletes, the "innocents." While it's admirable, it also opens up the road to "don't punish the perpetrator because the innocent will get hurt." (DUI - "But I'm the bread winner. I need my car so I can earn enough money.")

There are always innocents hurt by the unethical and illegal actions of the few - who was/is worried about the Catholic nuns, teachers and students who've had schools and parishes closed because of the fines the Church has been forced to pay? Not everyone was "guilty" in the financial fiasco. Not everyone was guilty in the drug trials lies. Not everyone was guilty in the mortgage mess. But, the ramifications impacted an exponential number of people.

Seems to me we're taking more care of these folks -- because they're athletes -- than we are of the other folks, thereby continuing the culture of "Sport as King."

TJI, it seems to me there is a significant difference between your suggestions and situations where additional options may exist. As in the weakness of the Enron example earlier there is a difference between consequences of the event and the chosen method of punishment. Personally I think that almost every solution the NCAA ever chooses is misdirected and therefore hurts, specifically and exactly, the wrong people.

Let's be clear Jerry Sandusky was the perpetrator. Second hand, Tim Curley and Gary Schultz, were the complicit enablers who had the facts and did nothing. Beyond that it becomes much more vague for Spanier and for Joe Paterno. Beyond that all the issues involved are ones of systems management which were not sufficient and are very likely not any better in numerous colleges and universities. PSU was clearly negligent in its responsibilities under the Cleary, whether the NCAA is the correct organization to deal with that can be debated. All need dealt with. All must be dealt with properly in order to be effective and insure the desired goals and outcomes.

My goals are punish everyone who has broken state or federal laws. Punish those involved in breaking specific and demonstrable NCAA regulations and statutes. Correct university structures and systems that failed to make it impossible for individuals to game the system at Penn State and thus made the university incapable of of meeting its obligations to prevent the history of Jerry Sandusky. Make sure that all members of the student body, faculty and staff are equally and/or equivalently responsible for their actions without favoritism shown for academic, athletic or professional standing.

Sandusky has been charged and convicted and providing something does not lead to the convictions being overturned, God forbid, he will spend the rest of his life in prison.

Curley and Schultz have been charged. They will be tried under the PA law for failure to report and rightly so. That is exactly what the law charges them with because they did not report the event reported to them by Mike McQueary. They managed it and failed to meet their obligation under the law.

Until more information comes out than even what the Freeh report found it is hard to say what Joe Paterno or President Spannier knew without hearsay or suppositions not provable in fact. To date neither has been charged or tried and only one can be. It is hard to say how these individuals should be punished or for what without further information.

The problem of students and innocents and punishing the PSU or any university is the purpose and to what end. Is the goal to punish or should it be to produce correction. Is the NCAA in any manner suitable as an organization to the task it has taken upon itself to do.

As I listed above the culpabilities of Penn State lie in relatively specific areas. Virtually none of which have in the past have specific guidance from the NCAA as to proper organizational structure and procedures. something that I now expect that the NCAA whehther it wants to or not is now obligated to do.

I have long thought the NCAA's method of punishment is illconceived and miscalculated. When programs are punished in the normal manner many without connection to the events are made to pay the price for the sins of others. Coaches and administrators are the offending persons and yet they suffer little to no penalty for their involvement. Transfer and find a new job while the old school and worse the student athletes left behind suffer. The death penalty should apply to those coaches and administrators directly. Banned for a year, three years or for life from being hired at a NCAA university. Violated the rules, and you coach, you Mr. AD pay the price. When it is a student athlete who violates the rules penalize him or her and require restitution if possible and suspension as appropriate. Fine the university for systemic and procedural deficiencies but always remember the real goal is to get those procedures put in place. Place the school on probation and require regular checkpoints and reports.

The NCAA needs to leave to the courts the punishment of criminals, to hold its coaches and athletic directors accountable for violating the principles of fair competition. And if it is going to get into this new areas of general morality it had better be ready for a rainfall of athletes in trouble in numerous universities where rapes have occurred on campuses and have silently disappeared in the past or gone unreported. Given the decisions involving PSU everytime such an assault involves an athlete there should now be screams for the NCAA to investigate and take action. They are poorly suited to that task.

Yes, there are innocents who are affected and there always will be BUT that doesn't mean you simply accept that and do whatever. You stop, you study and you ask yourself to what end are we attempting to take action, does a particularly action achieve that end, if not, why are we considering it, and how will a particular action hurt how many who had no part in the problem and can the action be modified to minimize affecting the innocent. Punishing the wrong people for something for something they had no part in does not create restraint it creates resentment and anger. That is not a good end.

 

[UConnCat]

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.

I don't disagree with your points. My point was that it doesn't appear there were any negotiations. Penn State just accepted the NCAA's "justice" as if it didn't believe it had the right (or standing) to have a say in its own punishments. I'm struggling to understand why that was the case. I'm sure some at Penn State regret not stepping up and perhaps imposing the death penalty (for a year) on itself or doing something that signaled it fully grasped the gravity of what had happened. Instead, it seemed to just sit back and await (and accept) its punishment.

 

[JS]

I don't disagree with your points. My point was that it doesn't appear there were any negotiations.

I assume what makes you say that, Cat, is Penn State's announcement that "We accept the consent decree imposed by the NCAA."

But if it was a consent decree, the penalties weren't just imposed. Consent implies at least a minimal negotiation of "Will you sign this or not?" -- with the likely subtext of the hardest line being "If not, we'll do worse, and if you don't like it we'll see you in court."

'In other words, in going for consent, the NCAA wanted something. And to get the other party to sign off, you have to offer something, even if -- hardest line -- it's only that you'll remove a threat.

More likely, in the normal course, there'd be some feeling out and give and take, probably conducted by lawyers from each side, to determine the parties' bottom line positions. If an agreement is reached, both parties would generally agree not to discuss the negotiations -- or anything other than the terms of the agreement -- with the media.

We don't know for sure what occurred, but if, for example, NCAA had just announced a penalty of half a billion dollars, Penn State would've undoubtedly refused and mounted a legal challenge. And if there was indeed no negotiation other than the minimum, NCAA must've guessed right (or even too low) at what Penn State would accept.

Maybe we'll eventually learn more about how this went down. Much remains to be gleaned, leaked, testified to and written on the Sandusky debacle -- undoubtedly including books.

 

[Sargassoc]

I'm intrigued by all the concern expressed for the athletes, the "innocents." While it's admirable, it also opens up the road to "don't punish the perpetrator because the innocent will get hurt." (DUI - "But I'm the bread winner. I need my car so I can earn enough money.")

There are always innocents hurt by the unethical and illegal actions of the few - who was/is worried about the Catholic nuns, teachers and students who've had schools and parishes closed because of the fines the Church has been forced to pay? Not everyone was "guilty" in the financial fiasco. Not everyone was guilty in the drug trials lies. Not everyone was guilty in the mortgage mess. But, the ramifications impacted an exponential number of people.

Seems to me we're taking more care of these folks -- because they're athletes -- than we are of the other folks, thereby continuing the culture of "Sport as King."

Yes, yes, and yes.

I'd like to connect this to Women's Basketball for a moment, because I think it's relevant and speaks to a larger issue-- that of a pattern of behavior that started (but did not end) with Paterno.

I think it is worth recalling that this is NOT the first time that Penn State (who apparently touted itself as a moral paragon in the athletic world) showed a callous disregard for: NCAA compliance and oversight of staff, at the same time allowing Joe Paterno to call the shots OUTSIDE of the football program. Remember the Rene Portland debacle?

For those of you not familiar with it, I recommend this excellent synopsis from Michelle Voepel at ESPN: LINK HERE

And if your curiosity is piqued, I'd recommend watching the documentary Training Rules (which is in the clip in the ESPN story) which chronicles how Rene Portland systematically targeted players she believed to be lesbians (with tacit approval from Paterno, who had hired her, all the way up). She ruined the careers of more than a few basketball players quite deliberately. It appears pretty obvious that Paterno exercised control throughout athletics (after he was no longer athletic director), not just within the football program. (You can stream the film on Netflix. Watch it, then see if you still feel that the reaction to the Sandusky horrors were an aberration by a few people.)

This athletic program was never the program it sold itself as. As Voepel says, ". . . the situations are linked in this way: The leadership at Penn State was lacking, and many of the same key people -- such as Curley and Spanier -- were involved. . . ."

And, sadly, in Penn State's case (as in all crimes), as ThisJustIn notes, innocent people get hurt.

 

[msf22b]

Sargassoc: The problem with the Portland saga is that it was not identified as being a form of abuse until the lawsuit.
And even then, the athletic dept. and a the admin did not have to answer to the press, the NCAA, public opinion (except in a most limited sense); it was treated as a local or at best, a legal issue. Interestingly, the most active proponents of justice in that case were students and faculty of the University, outside of the athletic dept.
Could not the case be made that the NCAA was an "enabler" in that matter and jumped in only when the stench got to bad even for them?

 

[Sargassoc]

Sargassoc: The problem with the Portland saga is that it was not identified as being a form of abuse until the lawsuit.
And even then, the athletic dept. and a the admin did not have to answer to the press, the NCAA, public opinion (except in a most limited sense); it was treated as a local or at best, a legal issue. Interestingly, the most active proponents of justice in that case were students and faculty of the University, outside of the athletic dept.
Could not the case be made that the NCAA was an "enabler" in that matter and jumped in only when the stench got to bad even for them?

Absolutely, yes. The NCAA, as most people here have noted, acts with impunity and quite inexplicably at times. They are not the problem, but they are generally not the solution, either.