(06-08-2013 05:03 PM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 03:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Anyway, arguing on the internet based on "personal experiences" is beyond lame, and I can assure you that you don't want to go there. I went to PSU and have actual first hand knowledge of the university making questionable decisions to benefit the football program. However, don't take my word for it, read Vicky Triponey's resignation letter. Anyway, if the admins were as innocent as you would like to pretend, then there wouldn't be any liability on their end.

I'm an alum, and can also speak to preferential treatment. I can also say that the emergency response protocol in UP is as inbred and counterintuitive as it sounds. When I worked for housing and event services one summer, if I called 911 without first talking to some sort of supervision before or immediately after, I would have been sternly reprimanded...

...like I was only a few years previous to that when I was a student and someone broke into my room and threw a lamp toward my head.

Nobody has to tell me what "Red" or Paterno should have done...but that's how they do things in UP, or any of PSU's campuses.

But, if you say that's PSU's issue...who gave UP the go-ahead to have such a system? Centre County? The State?

You begin to see that this isn't entirely the university's fault.

For the little guy, huh.

I am sorry but could not resist, although this was probably noted elsewhere.

(06-06-2013 08:30 AM)Wilkie01 Wrote:  

(06-06-2013 08:24 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

Quote:AP Top 25 ‏@AP_Top25 5m \
BREAKING: Federal judge throws out lawsuit by Pa. governor against #NCAA over Penn State sanctions.

I guess Gov. Corbett will be crying in the press later today.

Cry me a river, PSU!

Joe Cocker played at Jubilee at Carolina in 1970 with Leon Russell, Rita Cooledge, and Eric Clapton.

(06-08-2013 03:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 02:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Terry,
You still fail to get the point. If you choose to fight a prosecutor you have several levels of impartial appeals. There was no appeal. The highest level of the NCAA violated their own procedures and made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate court. President Emmert basically told PSU they would be found guilty and what would happen (after having discussed it with the Presidents on the council). It was like President Obama and the Supreme Court meeting and deciding to give a criminal the death penalty before a trial and then sending Obama to pressure the accused to accept a plea bargain.

I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, Emmert was seeking to impose harsher penalties, but he was also going to make PSU go through the process. He gave PSU a chance to sign the consent decree (plea bargain) and avoid the hearing process. What Emmert told PSU was that they very likely could face the death penalty if they went through the process, based on what they had already agreed to in the Freeh Report - which was essentially that PSU's athletic department had been operating without a compliance department and had no oversight from the university, and those within the athletic department more or less acted without ethical responsibility. That is what the true offense is for PSU.

Actually it was the President, the Administrative VP and only one person, the AD, in the athletic department. I give McQueary a break on it in that he did inform the administrative VP who was over the police department (although his delay before reporting it to him was questionable). The fact that its two top officials at the university is where the NCAA can make its argument (conduct unbecoming a member), but then they punished the football team which is inconsistent with that argument.

(06-08-2013 03:45 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 11:03 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:08 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 03:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-07-2013 08:52 AM)bitcruncher Wrote:  I don't doubt that one bit. The only thing that saved Penn State was the fact that they're the state university for the State of Pennsylvania, with a lot of influential people that have a vested interest in the program...

On the contrary. If they were small, private and in the MAC, no one would have paid any attention and it would have been ruled outside the scope. Montana is hardly getting any attention and they had coverups of rapes by football players, not just crimes by a former coach at Penn St.

The NCAA is punishing them because of their assumption that it was about the football program. Its the NCAA that is making fb bigger than it really is, not PSU. IMO it was more likely about embarrassing the university and the specific officials who let Sandusky hang around with kids after the 2000 charges were dismissed by the police. So I think the NCAA is on very shaky and speculative ground. And they penalized PSU back to 2000 even though that act by Sandusky was properly handled by the university.

PSU didn't "coverup" the acts. They just didn't report the later act to the police. The 2000 charges were reviewed by the police and the police decided not to prosecute. The graduate assistant should have reported the 2001 incident directly to police, but that wasn't a crime. The VP over the police likely had a legal obligation that he failed on. Rather than a coverup, they recklessly disregarded the victims and 1) didn't report the crime; 2) failed to followup as per their own plan; and 3) failed to stop Sandusky from bringing kids into PSU despite their decision to stop him from doing that. There may have been perjury, but that was after the police arrested Sandusky and the university board started to get involved.

As bitcruncher says, the federal government hasn't ruled on their non-disclosure of the crimes under the Clearly Act. That is still a big risk for Penn St. And that should have been the appropriate forum for penalties.

I think that you keep confusing responsibilities.

1. "If they were small, private and in the MAC, no one would have paid any attention and it would have been ruled outside the scope."
The NCAA is investigating the U of Montana as we speak. Just because the media isn't picking it up doesn't mean that the NCAA isn't acting, as you seem to imply. The NCAA and ESPN are two distinct organizations.

2. "[The judicial system] should have been the appropriate forum for penalties."
No. The judicial system is the appropriate forum to resolve legal disputes. PSU's compliance with NCAA rules and regulations isn't an issue that concerns the judicial system unless there are allegations of a breach of contract, which there weren't. The feds should investigate child porn, child prostitution, child molestation, money laundering, possible tax fraud (depending on whether or not someone was getting paid and if so, who they were), perjury, and violations of the Clery Act. So long as PSU wishes to maintain its status as a member of the NCAA, the NCAA is absolutely the appropriate forum to realign PSU's athletic priorities in a manner that promotes safety. Promoting safety in college athletics is actually literally why the NCAA exists.

This has nothing to do with the safety of athletes. Its the safety of children who have nothing to do with the NCAA from a predator who was a former university employee. As for Montana, it would have been dealt with LONG ago if they had been a Penn St. or USC.
3. How you jump to the conclusion that there wasn't a cover up, and that the decision wasn't driven by football is beyond me. I can assure you that PSU wouldn't cover up 30 years of abuse if it was a math professor doing the abuse. Football drove (and still drives) the bus at PSU.

Noone knows what they were thinking but the 3 stooges. People are jumping to the conclusion that it was about football with no facts other than one e-mail where one of the 3 stooges refers to re-thinking things after talking with Paterno. We know nothing about what was said except they talked about being "fair" to Sandusky who they had known for decades. IMO based on my experience with people, the reputation and success of the football program was the last thing on their minds (actually 2nd to last, the victims were last). They were thinking about the whole university and their own personal reputations and legal liability since he had been accused before and they allowed the situation where children were at risk to continue to happen on school property. But again, what they were thinking is speculation since they have not said.

There was no coverup or effort to hide things. There was a failure to act (again, at least prior to the grand jury testimony when Sandusky was removed by the police as a threat, so any perjury to the grand jury should not have been an NCAA concern). Some people have suggested their was some grand conspiracy in 2000 with the police and prosecutor and the current governor, but that is a big stretch.

1. So you think that an organization that knowingly employed and covered up a rapist was creating a safe environment for 17-22 year old boys? Also, FWIW, there are also murder allegations, but I think that the disappearance was unrelated.

2. And you do realize that the final Sandusky investigation began in early 2011, right?* Montana began in 2013. So no, you aren't right. If Montana was PSU, the NCAA would still be screwing around.

*Obviously it had been off and on before that, but the investigations which were made public in early 2011 were what eventually brought him down.

3. You also realized that Sandusky was using university facilities as late as November 2012, and was recruiting for PSU as late as the summer of 2012.* You also realize that he raped young boys WHILE WORKING FOR PSU. He was NOT a former employee. He was a current employee for part of it and a former employee for the rest. Either way, it does not matter. To believe that these actions weren't motivate by football reasons is astonishingly naïve.

Anyway, arguing on the internet based on "personal experiences" is beyond lame, and I can assure you that you don't want to go there. I went to PSU and have actual first hand knowledge of the university making questionable decisions to benefit the football program. However, don't take my word for it, read Vicky Triponey's resignation letter. Anyway, if the admins were as innocent as you would like to pretend, then there wouldn't be any liability on their end.

*Before you say that he wasn't, the camp director and the coach only said that he didn't address the kids in general. The actually both said that they didn't know if he contacted the player (who says that he did).

4. And no cover up? 1. What do you think that perjury is? 2. Why do you think that the FBI is digging through PSU financial records? 3. Why do you think that there was SO much inaction? 4. What do you think that rampant inaction was?

#1. PSU did not knowing employ a child molester. Noone knew anything about 1998 at the Alamo Bowl until 2011. The 2000 incident was dismissed by the prosecutor and Sandusky retired after that. You are totally wrong on your facts. Sandusky was not employed. He was using university facilities as a retired employee was entitled to. He was not supposed to be bringing children in there, but that is one of the areas the PSU leadership failed miserably. I will repeat it again what I said earlier since you obviously missed it-the 3 stooges actions and inaction were reprehensible and the NCAA presidents were understandably appalled. So they will lose lawsuits and may well go to jail. There is no question their actions were wrong. And that Joe Paterno failed morally in not raising questions. The issue is whether the NCAA should have been the one penalizing the university and whether penalizing the football team was appropriate if they did.

As for the "coverup" issue, let me see if I can explain that more simply for you. There was inaction but no coverup prior to the grand jury. There may have been perjury in the grand jury. At that point Sandusky had been stopped by the police, so any coverup was to protect themselves, NOT Sandusky. So the NCAA definitely had no grounds on the "coverup" issue as someone earlier claimed. Once again, the issue is the NCAA's actions, not the PSU 3.

As for personal experiences being lame, I'll also explain that more simply. If anyone thinks the 3 stooges actions were solely about protecting the football team (there can certainly be differences of opinion on whether that was important and how important since they haven't said and no one is a mind reader), they are either 1) waaaay too caught up in sports; 2) too emotional about the horrible crimes and reprehensible actions to be rational about the topic; or 3) totally clueless about human nature.

Their own reputation, future job prospects and legal liability are more important to most people than a football team. Based on my "personal experiences" with human beings, the football team would likely be very low on their priority list. The 3 knew there had been an accusation against Sandusky in 2000. They should have been very concerned about the impact on themselves if he committed a crime of a similar nature in 2001 when they had allowed him to continue to take children onto university facilities. And a lot of people ignore problems. They don't want to deal with them and just irrationally hope they go away. They could have just hoped it wasn't what McQueary thought and hoped Sandusky didn't do it again. That would not be uncommon human behavior. People often don't do the right thing and often don't behave rationally. Doing the right thing is often hard. Doing nothing is always easy.

(06-08-2013 08:37 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 03:02 PM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 02:48 PM)bullet Wrote:  Terry,
You still fail to get the point. If you choose to fight a prosecutor you have several levels of impartial appeals. There was no appeal. The highest level of the NCAA violated their own procedures and made themselves prosecutor, judge, jury and appellate court. President Emmert basically told PSU they would be found guilty and what would happen (after having discussed it with the Presidents on the council). It was like President Obama and the Supreme Court meeting and deciding to give a criminal the death penalty before a trial and then sending Obama to pressure the accused to accept a plea bargain.

I don't think that's entirely true. Yes, Emmert was seeking to impose harsher penalties, but he was also going to make PSU go through the process. He gave PSU a chance to sign the consent decree (plea bargain) and avoid the hearing process. What Emmert told PSU was that they very likely could face the death penalty if they went through the process, based on what they had already agreed to in the Freeh Report - which was essentially that PSU's athletic department had been operating without a compliance department and had no oversight from the university, and those within the athletic department more or less acted without ethical responsibility. That is what the true offense is for PSU.

Actually it was the President, the Administrative VP and only one person, the AD, in the athletic department. I give McQueary a break on it in that he did inform the administrative VP who was over the police department (although his delay before reporting it to him was questionable). The fact that its two top officials at the university is where the NCAA can make its argument (conduct unbecoming a member), but then they punished the football team which is inconsistent with that argument.

It was also Paterno who was invlolved and it involved a person affiliated with the football program (Sandusky) who had enough importance to the program to necessitate having an office on campus and access to the entire program. I'll admit that the current structure of the NCAA penalties often affects those who had nothing to do with the violations, but that is the nature of the penalty structure. The NCAA can only punish what it can control for the future, not anyone who is either no longer employed or no longer enrolled at an institution. The punishments are meant to be not only an example for others to avoid, but also a constant threat to the institutions of what could possibly be done to a program who breaks the rules. The punishments are for the football program because that is the nature of the association to the violations.

(06-08-2013 06:15 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  For the little guy, huh.

I am sorry but could not resist, although this was probably noted elsewhere.

Nah, don't misconstrue the difference. If the counties or state support this sort of emergency response system, any school in PA could have done this.

Quote:I'll admit that the current structure of the NCAA penalties often affects those who had nothing to do with the violations, but that is the nature of the penalty structure...The punishments are meant to be not only an example for others to avoid, but also a constant threat to the institutions of what could possibly be done to a program who breaks the rules.

...and this goes all the way back to why people feel it opens Pandora's box. There is always a direct and specific involvement by student athletes, because that's how the NCAA is chartered. But, there was no involvement, and the student athletes are still the primary bearers of burden.

So, what's the message the NCAA is telling everyone in this situation? What is it advising student athletes they could be punished for?

(06-09-2013 07:43 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:15 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  For the little guy, huh.

I am sorry but could not resist, although this was probably noted elsewhere.

Nah, don't misconstrue the difference. If the counties or state support this sort of emergency response system, any school in PA could have done this.

Quote:I'll admit that the current structure of the NCAA penalties often affects those who had nothing to do with the violations, but that is the nature of the penalty structure...The punishments are meant to be not only an example for others to avoid, but also a constant threat to the institutions of what could possibly be done to a program who breaks the rules.

...and this goes all the way back to why people feel it opens Pandora's box. There is always a direct and specific involvement by student athletes, because that's how the NCAA is chartered. But, there was no involvement, and the student athletes are still the primary bearers of burden.

So, what's the message the NCAA is telling everyone in this situation? What is it advising student athletes they could be punished for?

The programs are the ones with the onus of responsibility to adhere to the rules and police themselves accordingly. It's when the programs fail to police themselves appropriately that they get into trouble with the NCAA. The punishments are intended for the programs to get them to improve their own self-regulation. Unfortunately, that means impacts to SA's and even sometimes administrators or coaches that did nothing wrong themselves other than sign up with a university that is in trouble.

(06-09-2013 08:59 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:43 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:15 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  For the little guy, huh.

I am sorry but could not resist, although this was probably noted elsewhere.

Nah, don't misconstrue the difference. If the counties or state support this sort of emergency response system, any school in PA could have done this.

Quote:I'll admit that the current structure of the NCAA penalties often affects those who had nothing to do with the violations, but that is the nature of the penalty structure...The punishments are meant to be not only an example for others to avoid, but also a constant threat to the institutions of what could possibly be done to a program who breaks the rules.

...and this goes all the way back to why people feel it opens Pandora's box. There is always a direct and specific involvement by student athletes, because that's how the NCAA is chartered. But, there was no involvement, and the student athletes are still the primary bearers of burden.

So, what's the message the NCAA is telling everyone in this situation? What is it advising student athletes they could be punished for?

The programs are the ones with the onus of responsibility to adhere to the rules and police themselves accordingly. It's when the programs fail to police themselves appropriately that they get into trouble with the NCAA. The punishments are intended for the programs to get them to improve their own self-regulation. Unfortunately, that means impacts to SA's and even sometimes administrators or coaches that did nothing wrong themselves other than sign up with a university that is in trouble.

I agree to an extent, but it still doesn't answer my question as to what this punishment is to tell student athletes. Were there other ways the NCAA could have responded than the punishment it handed down to PSU? Why not just the fine? Why not just refuse to recognize Paterno (give him the Pete Rose treatment) and not vacate wins? Why not free transfers for all four years? Why not allow players to seek action or aid (ala a "do not call list") on unwanted solicitation during the transfer easement period?

It's easy to say "well, there will be collateral damage sometimes." The NCAA didn't even try to differentiate between innocent athletes and personnel.

(06-09-2013 09:24 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 08:59 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 07:43 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-08-2013 06:15 PM)sierrajip Wrote:  For the little guy, huh.

I am sorry but could not resist, although this was probably noted elsewhere.

Nah, don't misconstrue the difference. If the counties or state support this sort of emergency response system, any school in PA could have done this.

Quote:I'll admit that the current structure of the NCAA penalties often affects those who had nothing to do with the violations, but that is the nature of the penalty structure...The punishments are meant to be not only an example for others to avoid, but also a constant threat to the institutions of what could possibly be done to a program who breaks the rules.

...and this goes all the way back to why people feel it opens Pandora's box. There is always a direct and specific involvement by student athletes, because that's how the NCAA is chartered. But, there was no involvement, and the student athletes are still the primary bearers of burden.

So, what's the message the NCAA is telling everyone in this situation? What is it advising student athletes they could be punished for?

The programs are the ones with the onus of responsibility to adhere to the rules and police themselves accordingly. It's when the programs fail to police themselves appropriately that they get into trouble with the NCAA. The punishments are intended for the programs to get them to improve their own self-regulation. Unfortunately, that means impacts to SA's and even sometimes administrators or coaches that did nothing wrong themselves other than sign up with a university that is in trouble.

I agree to an extent, but it still doesn't answer my question as to what this punishment is to tell student athletes. Were there other ways the NCAA could have responded than the punishment it handed down to PSU? Why not just the fine? Why not just refuse to recognize Paterno (give him the Pete Rose treatment) and not vacate wins? Why not free transfers for all four years? Why not allow players to seek action or aid (ala a "do not call list") on unwanted solicitation during the transfer easement period?

It's easy to say "well, there will be collateral damage sometimes." The NCAA didn't even try to differentiate between innocent athletes and personnel.

They never do, mostly because they can't make that distinction. But the athletes that are staying are largely doing it of their own accord. Any PSU player has the ability to transfer without restriction until the start of fall camp this year. They have had a full season to decide and anyone on scholarship was/is free to move (except the current incoming freshmen).

The vacation of wins is probably the most bullsh*t penalty the NCAA hands down. It really doesn't do anything unless its tied to financial penalties (like Memphis' 2007 tournament credits), but often they are not. I hate that penalty. It's stupid, especially for football where the NCAA does not control any of the pursestrings. But again, the penalties are designed to punish a program more than an individual. It's not entirely fair for those who aren't involved directly, but the NCAA is really limited in its scope of reach in that regard, at least until August 1, because of how the penalty structure has been written into the NCAA.

As of August 1, the penalty structure changes a bit, with HC's getting more penalties and the programs getting hit more in the wallet. Larger numbers of scholarship reductions are also included, but that reduces some opportunity for incoming student-athletes. It's still not a system without collateral damage, but in the eyes of the presidents who make the system, it's designed to be punishment by deterrent, as that is truly all the NCAA can realistically sanction. If they don't put forth those sorts of punishments (postseason bans, scholarship reductions, etc.), then what really hurts a program? Money? The levels of fines will increase with the new system up to and including forfeiture of revenue for the sport involved. Maybe that will be the ultimate deterrent.

(06-09-2013 10:46 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  They never do, mostly because they can't make that distinction. But the athletes that are staying are largely doing it of their own accord. Any PSU player has the ability to transfer without restriction until the start of fall camp this year. They have had a full season to decide and anyone on scholarship was/is free to move (except the current incoming freshmen).

"Can't" as in "it's not in our charter or jurisdiction?" If that's the case, the NCAA shouldn't have touched the issue. If it's "can't" as in "this is unprecedented, and haven't the foggiest what to do," which they have practically said as much, then they failed to thoroughly, specifically, and rationally address the matter.

Sorry, but the NCAA is out of bounds on this one where it concerned the student athletes. What football players choose to do after this period is irrelevant, because the sanction was clearly punitive and on them, as well as insufficient in its coverage of the entire length of the sanctioning. It's beating a dead horse, but it's not a subject to sweep under the rug.

Quote:The vacation of wins is probably the most bullsh*t penalty the NCAA hands down. It really doesn't do anything unless its tied to financial penalties (like Memphis' 2007 tournament credits), but often they are not. I hate that penalty. It's stupid, especially for football where the NCAA does not control any of the pursestrings. But again, the penalties are designed to punish a program more than an individual. It's not entirely fair for those who aren't involved directly, but the NCAA is really limited in its scope of reach in that regard, at least until August 1, because of how the penalty structure has been written into the NCAA.

I agree, and just another reason I'm bent out of shape on that penalty. The NCAA could have simply chosen not to recognize Paterno's body of work, just like MLB and BWAA are for Pete Rose. The Reds and Phillies of that time are fine...just not Pete. It would have had the same effect in that Penn State couldn't officially market the man's accomplishments without stern rebuke from the NCAA, Big Ten, and community/public at large. Paterno's fine up until the '97 season...if you want to honor the guy thereafter, it's as an instructor and ambassador/philanthropist.

...but that's just it. People will recognize Paterno's feats regardless what the NCAA decides to do, and no matter how much some don't want others to. So, again...if that's what's going to happen anyway, who really got shorted by vacating the wins?

(06-10-2013 08:11 AM)The Cutter of Bish Wrote:  

(06-09-2013 10:46 AM)CommuterBob Wrote:  They never do, mostly because they can't make that distinction. But the athletes that are staying are largely doing it of their own accord. Any PSU player has the ability to transfer without restriction until the start of fall camp this year. They have had a full season to decide and anyone on scholarship was/is free to move (except the current incoming freshmen).

"Can't" as in "it's not in our charter or jurisdiction?" If that's the case, the NCAA shouldn't have touched the issue. If it's "can't" as in "this is unprecedented, and haven't the foggiest what to do," which they have practically said as much, then they failed to thoroughly, specifically, and rationally address the matter.

Sorry, but the NCAA is out of bounds on this one where it concerned the student athletes. What football players choose to do after this period is irrelevant, because the sanction was clearly punitive and on them, as well as insufficient in its coverage of the entire length of the sanctioning. It's beating a dead horse, but it's not a subject to sweep under the rug.

Quote:The vacation of wins is probably the most bullsh*t penalty the NCAA hands down. It really doesn't do anything unless its tied to financial penalties (like Memphis' 2007 tournament credits), but often they are not. I hate that penalty. It's stupid, especially for football where the NCAA does not control any of the pursestrings. But again, the penalties are designed to punish a program more than an individual. It's not entirely fair for those who aren't involved directly, but the NCAA is really limited in its scope of reach in that regard, at least until August 1, because of how the penalty structure has been written into the NCAA.

I agree, and just another reason I'm bent out of shape on that penalty. The NCAA could have simply chosen not to recognize Paterno's body of work, just like MLB and BWAA are for Pete Rose. The Reds and Phillies of that time are fine...just not Pete. It would have had the same effect in that Penn State couldn't officially market the man's accomplishments without stern rebuke from the NCAA, Big Ten, and community/public at large. Paterno's fine up until the '97 season...if you want to honor the guy thereafter, it's as an instructor and ambassador/philanthropist.

...but that's just it. People will recognize Paterno's feats regardless what the NCAA decides to do, and no matter how much some don't want others to. So, again...if that's what's going to happen anyway, who really got shorted by vacating the wins?

I agree on vacating wins. That only makes sense to me with an ineligible player, like someone who flunked out of school but still played or if the school actually got caught paying them (not an agent). USC has had their 2004 BCS win vacated, but who other than the NCAA record book pays any attention to that? Everyone is still going to count the final 4 trip by Memphis and the final 4 trips by just about everyone in the last 60s/early 70s who got in the final 4 with UCLA (Providence, Villanova, W. Kentucky all got vacated).