Before I begin:

These are my opinions. I don't claim to be right. I just claim to think that I'm right. Obviously you are free to disagree and post your disagreements. I'm actually eager to hear what you have to say. I just ask that you be respectful and keep the discussion civil.

MY NCAA SANCTIONS:

PRELIMINARY MATTER:

*I would have given PSU the option of using their report or conducting my own investigation, for better or worse. If I administered the investigation, it would be neutral and its purpose would be to discover what happened, why it happened, how the events could have been prevented, how the problem can be fixed, and how it affects NCAA athletics. Obviously I do not know how my investigation would have gone, so I cannot say what my penalty would have been. However, I can say that PSU would have been fined to cover some of the necessary and reasonable costs associated with the investigation, but other than that, it would not have necessarily been worse.

*If PSU would have opted to use the Freeh report, my penalties would have been as follows:

This is a little complicated, but there would be a base sanction and then a chance to get sanctions reduced for good behavior.

*BASE PUNISHMENT:
**5 year death penalty
**Current players are free to either transfer without penalty, or stay at PSU, which would have to honor any existing scholarships (despite not having a reciprocal athletic commitment) for what their remaining NCAA eligibility would have been (including a redshirt year), until their graduation.
**Wins would have been erased from the time of the first known instance of sexual abuse where a PSU employee other than Sandusky either knew, or should have known of the conduct, until the school had a good faith intent to cooperate with authorities and made an overt act in continuance of that intent. Obviously this is up for debate, so I would have conducted a mini investigation and had a mini trial where PSU would have gotten a chance to make their case before a neutral 3rd party (i.e. an arbitrator). The standard of evidence for both proof that PSU should have known and that PSU had a good faith intent to cooperate with authorities and made an overt act in furtherance of their intent would have been "a preponderance of likelihood."

*GOOD BEHAVIOR:
**I would reduce it to a 4 year penalty and a scholarship reduction for the first year to 50 scholarships.
**Good behavior consists of a "good faith effort to fix the systemic forces associated that created the dangerous and unsafe environment highlighted by Mr. Sandusky's actions."
***Prima facie evidence of a good faith effort would be compliance with either the recommendations of the Freeh report, or compliance with NCAA recommendations which would be generated for free from the NCAA at the request of PSU.

*INCREASED GOOD BEHAVIOR:
**The death penalty would have remained at 4 years (same as basic good behavior), but there would be no scholarship reductions during that 5th year.
***"Increased good behavior" consists of good behavior, plus a $20 million increase in donations for the purpose of helping abused children and preventing future abuse. the money would be spend in 3 tiers of decreasing intensity. Tier 1 (the most intense) would be Centre County, Tier 2 would be the state of Pennsylvania, and Tier 3 would be the United States in general. PSU would be free to determine the allocation between the tiers, but it would have to do so in good faith, and all 3 tiers would have to receive reasonable funding.
***Not only could the money be spent on existing/future school programs, but that would be actively encouraged by the NCAA (in the form of verbal encouragement). In fact, I would even allow PSU to pay and employ PSU student as interns in their programs, so long as payment was industry custom for that industry. However, the money could not represent donations straight from independent parties (i.e. alumni clubs), current/planned/reasonably predictable future allocations, or court fees/settlement to victims. Direct payments from 3rd parties in PSU's name and previously planned payments don't add anything new, and court costs/settlement fees is a whole different can of worms that is outside the NCAA's prevue.

WHY I CHOSE WHAT I DID:
*I think that PSU has two problems: 1) rotten apples, and systemic, environmental problems that corrupted those in charge and will continue to corrupt good people. I think that the "rotten apples" problem is solved by the termination of those in charge, which is a PR necessity, and thus it is not necessary for the NCAA to intervene. However, I think that the systemic powers are outside of PSU's ability to change on its own, and I think that they will corrupt to next batch of PSU leaders, given enough time. So, I think that it is important for an entire class of PSU students to go through PSU and flush out the bad. I want to remove the corruption/culture that exists at PSU from its institutional memory, and that require an entire class to forget about football and focus on finding a new identity for the school. Since the average college student is in college for 4-5 years, I think the penalty should be for 4-5 years.

*I think that a death penalty is necessary, because that is the only way to completely remove the culture and force PSU to find other interests, identities, and revenue streams.

*I gave a year reduction in favor of good behavior because I want to reward good behavior. And honestly, if a school can't meet my standard for good behavior, it is not in a position to play football that year. My standard for constituting good behavior is meant to be fairly low. I would imagine that they would do what I required anyway for PR reasons.

*I chose to reduce the scholarships to 50, so they could field a team (11 offense, 11 defense, kicker, punter, long snapper) 2 deep.

*I chose to give an avenue to avoid a scholarship reduction because I wanted to promote systems to ensure that college athletics would never be an unsafe environment for those involved. The $20 million fine to be put towards remedying the problem that Sandusky unleashed on central PA is meant to keep the community running while the school isn't playing (avoid "innocent" bystanders as much as possible, and fix the area where the most people were exposed to the abuse (central PA, then PA, and then across the nation).

*I would encourage the school to use this as an opportunity to better its academic environment by using PSU students and programs. I think that this emphasized the importance that education should serve in the NCAA's decision-making process, and I think that it would give the social workers at PSU some very valuable experience, which betters the local community and the world as a whole. Also, it lessens the blow of the punishment. After all, punishment isn't my goal. Fixing a broken system and implementing a new system is my goal.

CONCLUSION:
Despite what many might think, my goal isn't to punish PSU. It's to transform PSU. Also, I know that some feel that the scandal isn't athletic in nature. I feel differently for a variety or reasons. IMO, the biggest reason is because I don't think that events would have happened like they did had it been a math teacher. I think that there was such a big cover-up because it involved a football coach, and because football was/is crucial to the athletic dept., which is crucial to the university's image. If it isn't an athletic, then it shouldn't matter whether Sandusky was a football coach or a math teach. Also, if the actions taken weren't to advance the athletic department via the football team, then I don't know why so many people went out of their way to look the other way/do the bare minimum legally required.

**The $20 million is arbitrary, but it felt right. I wanted it to be substantial, but I didn't want to be a penalty. I figure that the school would probably donate far more anyway.

**The erased wins were because that period was tainted. IMO, PSU had an unfair advantage that they gained by covering up the scandal. I don't claim to know the exact length. That would be decided by hearing evidence from a NCAA-appointed prosecutor and the school and be decide by a 3rd part (much like a court case). It could be very small, or it could be substantial.

Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

the ncaa should never have touched this......

its not their call and its not their jurisdiction and it was done for PR reasons.

institutions like the ncaa are not supposed to cave to public pressure.

if the psu wanted to have this sort of power where the could punish whenever they see things fit, they should have enforced it on auburn & unc as well. those schools actually gained a competitive advantage

i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

What happened at Penn State was more than twice as bad as what happened at SMU in the 1980's.

SMU had a death penalty for two years. Penn State should have got the death penalty for four years.

(07-13-2013 10:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

They covered it up to protect the school's image, to avoid losing recruits.

(07-13-2013 10:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

They covered it up to protect the school's image, to avoid losing recruits.

if psu got a top recruiting class post scandal, pre ncaa sanctions then why do you think they would lose recruits for turning in a pedofile

thats a weak argument

(07-13-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the ncaa should never have touched this......

its not their call and its not their jurisdiction and it was done for PR reasons.

institutions like the ncaa are not supposed to cave to public pressure.

if the psu wanted to have this sort of power where the could punish whenever they see things fit, they should have enforced it on auburn & unc as well. those schools actually gained a competitive advantage

If UNC doesn't get worst than P St & USC, then something is wrong with the NCAA.

(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Well, to answer your first question, I'm interested in it because I'm alum, and I think that my alma mater is suffering from serous problems that it is unable to fix.

To answer your question, I think that you're wrong that the problem was the result of a few bad apples who have since been removed. I don't disagree that there are/were bad apples, but I think that there are systemic problems with the general environment at Penn State. Specifically, I think that there's way too much pressure to make money, directly through game day revenue, merchandise sales, media sales, and so on, and indirectly through donations. IMO, state underfunding has a lot to do with this. PSU appropriations are what they were in the 1980's in terms of dollar amounts, and what they were in the 1960's in terms of spending power.* Think about how much bigger the school is now than it was then. That has created a substantial financial crisis. Couple that with a school that is 100,000 people big (45,000 in state college, and 55,000 in satellite campuses) and you have an organization that is very, very unwieldy and hard to lead.** Obviously that isn't the athletic department's fault, but that has created a very intense environment, where there is a substantial amount of pressure to squeeze juice from rocks so to speak. That is a very, very strong motivator to cut corners and look the other way (which is what happened). Unfortunately, because of the importance of the football team in defining the university's self image,*** I think that a disproportionate amount of that pressure falls on the AD and the football coach. IMO, that isn't healthy. The university needs to diversify its identity and spread the pressure around, or at least place the pressure on someone more suitable.

I was at PSU during the Sandusky period, so I agree that there are many members of the university who are innocent. However, to say that we are just as much victims of the scandal as the kids/adults who were inappropriately touched is simply not the case. I am not as much of a victim as they are. That said, I appreciate your sentiment that many innocent fans/students would be paying for Sandusky's actions, but if people don't pay now, I think that other innocent people will pay much more in the future.

*For example, there was a big scandal in '06(?), where the university ran out of money and resorted to using tuition to pay for current construction projects, against university bylaws. I realize that doesn't sound ground-shaking, but that's the simplified version. The complex version is a lot more devious. Also, the university has been cutting programs left and right for a while now, including significant ones. I actually got an email in '11 (?) that used the word "cataclysmic" when describing PSU's financial situation and state support. Lest you still don't believe me, the university's financial position can physically be seen by the fact that the university is in the continued process of shutting down satellite campuses in favor of consolidating in State College to reduce overhead costs.

**I guess there is no objective way to prove this, but the last two PSU presidents were Spanier and Erickson. Ask any PSU friends what you think of them. I feel very confident that almost none of them will say favorable things. However, I can say for certain that more PSU Board of Trustees have lost seats on the PSU BoT than there have been seats up for election since the scandal, and the university elected a former football player who graduated in '06(?) in the last election. That isn't exactly reassuring.

***This can be seen through the football riots/riots in response to firing Joe Paterno and through the (IMO) underfunding of the basketball program. I realize that commenting on the state of the basketball program sounds weird, but I think that is an indicator of where the university's priorities are.

(07-13-2013 10:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

They covered it up to protect the school's image, to avoid losing recruits.

I bet recruits was the last thing they were thinking about.

(07-13-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the ncaa should never have touched this......

its not their call and its not their jurisdiction and it was done for PR reasons.

institutions like the ncaa are not supposed to cave to public pressure.

if the psu wanted to have this sort of power where the could punish whenever they see things fit, they should have enforced it on auburn & unc as well. those schools actually gained a competitive advantage

Obviously we disagree about whether or not the NCAA should have touched this. I think that it is in the NCAA's jurisdiction because it was motivated by athletics. Obviously you disagree, which is fine. I can see how reasonable minds can differ. In fact, you said that Joe did it to help a long-time friend in a previous post, and I won't try to change your mind. And, even if I did, it would be futile. Nobody knows why Joe did what he did, and at this point in time, that will never change. However, I will mention that more people than just Joe and Sandusky were involved with this. Many of Joe's defenders have pointed that out, and I do think that they're right on that point.

I also agree that the NCAA should enforce standards in a more consistent manner. The fact that the NCAA has been jerking Miami around for years now should be taken into account when determining their sentencing, but I agree, that the overall affect of their sentence should be substantial. If the allegations are true, I think that the athletic department is grossly out of the control of the school.

(07-13-2013 11:18 PM)whitey Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

They covered it up to protect the school's image, to avoid losing recruits.

I bet recruits was the last thing they were thinking about.

I think that they were trying to protect the image of the program for financial and competitive (recruiting) reasons. Given that there has been a coaching change and a newer, more energetic coach is at the helm right now, it's hard to say how much of an impact it had on recruiting, but I do think that it had a financial affect. As I understand it, ticket sales are down and team revenues are way down. Not only is that directly athletic in nature, it has the side affect of affecting funding for facilities over a long term, which affects recruiting, player performance, and player experiences.

Either way, even if their efforts were completely for not in that it would not have had any affect on recruiting, player performance, or department finances, I think that their actions were motivated by those considerations and I don't think that they should be rewarded for having an irrational and/or inaccurate fear.

I realize the NCAA is not the criminal judicial system, but I do think that it serves as a good analogy. If I plan on killing someone, and fire a bullet, but he is behind bullet-proof glass, I am still guilty of attempted murder, even if it was factually impossible. Similarly, brushing a scandal under the rug to try to keep from having to compete at a competitive disadvantage shouldn't be dismissed just because the scandal wouldn't have resulted in a competitive disadvantage. For example, IMO, had a coach at Miami offered to pay a player to go to Miami, Miami's athletic program shouldn't be let off the hook just because the player was a HUGE FSU fan and bent on going to FSU, whether Miami offered to pay him to go to Miami instead of not.

(07-13-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the ncaa should never have touched this......

its not their call and its not their jurisdiction and it was done for PR reasons.

institutions like the ncaa are not supposed to cave to public pressure.

if the psu wanted to have this sort of power where the could punish whenever they see things fit, they should have enforced it on auburn & unc as well. those schools actually gained a competitive advantage

the fact that you are arguing this issue and are upset about it hurting your athletic program says a lot about why the NCAA should have given you guys the death penalty.

(07-13-2013 11:49 PM)randaddyminer Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:23 PM)john01992 Wrote:  the ncaa should never have touched this......

its not their call and its not their jurisdiction and it was done for PR reasons.

institutions like the ncaa are not supposed to cave to public pressure.

if the psu wanted to have this sort of power where the could punish whenever they see things fit, they should have enforced it on auburn & unc as well. those schools actually gained a competitive advantage

the fact that you are arguing this issue and are upset about it hurting your athletic program says a lot about why the NCAA should have given you guys the death penalty.

im sorry but its not an athletic issue, if the ncaa wants to set a standard that they can swoop in whenever they see fit fine, just do it to every school not when you are trying to gain good PR.

baylor had a coach get in trouble for covering up murder
unc had an academic scandal
auburn with cam newton

im not trying to pull a "my school got shafted so i want it to happen to everyone else" but im saying that if the ncaa wants to go outside the lines, do it in a consistant manner.

I think the actions taken were severe and more than adequate - the criminal trials and civil cases that continue will be more than enough punishment for the school.

Indefinite death penalty for concealing a pedophile; thus allowing an unconscionable crime against young boys to continue. In fact, the B10 should have kicked PSU out of the conference….

(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Yes, thank you. Did I go back to July 2012 when I opened up this board???? We had this debate LAST year, it's been decided.

(07-14-2013 07:35 AM)NittanyLion Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:03 PM)Knightsweat Wrote:  Why now? This is a dead issue. All parties involved at PSU have either perished, been arrested, or been dismissed. The people still at PSU are equally victims of these individuals. The fanbase is only guilty of denial that their legendary coach could allow that element to persist at their university. I do feel that same fanbase could have been more empathetic towards the victims and their families however.

Their punishment has been determined and they're serving it. Lets move on.

Yes, thank you. Did I go back to July 2012 when I opened up this board???? We had this debate LAST year, it's been decided.

It is perfectly legitimate to review this situation as time goes by and we learn the actual results of the penalty and its effect on Penn State.

In hindsight, it appears the punishment was too light. As I stated earlier, what happened at Penn State was much worse than what happened at SMU in the 1980's. The appropriate punishment for Penn State would have been a four year death penalty with no fine.

What's done is done at Penn State. No more penalties will be added. But the NCAA needs to keep all of this in mind in determining penalties for future situations.

(07-13-2013 11:18 PM)whitey Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:29 PM)UConn-SMU Wrote:  

(07-13-2013 10:26 PM)john01992 Wrote:  i think that paterno did this not because of the football team but because he was sanduskys friend.

i just dont see the competitive advantage gained here so thats why i dont think its an athletic issue.

They covered it up to protect the school's image, to avoid losing recruits.

I bet recruits was the last thing they were thinking about.

First thing:


Joe Pa's reputation.....Joe Pa's reputation....Joe Pa's reputation......

They were worried about Joe Paterno's and Penn State's reputation being smeared by scandal.

The irony? It was because of their intentional "inaction".