Death Penalty

[LaPorteAveApostle]

One could drive a truck through "lack of institutional control".  I don't think that's what happened here.  What happened here was an egregious violation of Clery Act responsibilities, cover-up, and face-saving at the expense of victimized children, etc.--absolutely terrible violation of federal law, and individual rights, surely--but not NCAA statute as written.

At the risk of having the same analogy fail to be understood twice, this is, in the grand scheme, like the IRS going after a mass murderer, post-conviction, because he didn't file his taxes during the years he was luring young men to his Milwaukee apartment.  It's grandstanding, piling-on, chest-puffing, and a number of other participles I don't feel like tacking on.

Let's consider it 20 scholarships all told because they will go from a max of 85 to 65.  It's not really 80 scholarships because PSU, as most of the B1G, now offers 4-year guarantees (as they should), so 20 players will get the ax. (80 schol-years ÷ 4 years = 20 schol, so 20 kids who are now in HS--or haven't even started it yet--will pay for this.)

THIS, my friends, should make everyone notice the hypocrisy of the NCAA.  I admit it always bugged me until today; now it's festered and burst: in all of the "student-athlete" BS, the one thing they claim to make their indentured-servitude worthwhile is the 'gift' of the scholarship (which, as noted, wasn't for longer than a year until THIS year, and only at CERTAIN schools).

What's the major thing they take away from PSU today?  The vacating is nice, as it negates his record, but it can't take away the memory of walking off the field victorious (except vs. UM in non-RichRod years).  The fund is nice, as it makes it look like they're "caring" (remember the big-government dictum, "spending others' $ = caring a lot about things").  But the big-time hurt?  Scholarships to student-athletes.  (the fourth, the post-season ban is, after that, redundant in the worst way.)

As of today, I'm officially on the "pay college athletes" bandwagon.  Either that, or let's let the BCS schools continue to walk away from the NCAA and towards starting over.  When it comes to leeches on the hide of college athletics, the NCAA is just a shade smaller than the preposterous bowl system today.

[crusaderjoe]

PSU football is toasted beyond belief. The death penalty is, IMO, a wrist slap in comparison. PSU might as well forget about wasting FB scholarship on kids who will not be competitive in the Big 10 for the next decade.  After transfers and defecting recruits and the inability of O'Brian to land any quality players, the NCAA has sentenced PSU to a series of games, both at home and on the road, over the next 4-8 years that will make them the laughingstock of FBS football.  And each year it will be like Ground Hog day.  It's kind of like hanging them, then, putting them in the electric chair to make sure they killed them.

Rather, PSU should suspend all future scholarships (honor the present ones, of course -- IF the kids even hang around) and declare for non-scholarship FCS.  Heck the PFL could use a presence in Pennsylvania.  At least they would be able to compete.  Problem for PFL schools is that at PSU home games the echo caused by 99,999 empty seats in Beaver stadium might be an insurmountable home field advantage. 

Slap on the wrist?  Tell that to SMU.

The sanctions were meant to significantly hamper PSU over the next four years.  This goes without saying.  Aside from that, IMO, the only thing that Penn State loses once the bowl ban and scholarship reductions have expired will be on field depth.  Depth that, with the right coaching staff, could be replenished to at least competitive levels in shorter time frames than eight years. PSU may not be competing for NC's this decade, but there's no way it will take Penn State 22 years to get to another bowl game.  Hell, Penn State will probably be competitive with Indiana the year after the sanctions expire.

[bbtds]

Hell, Penn State will probably be competitive with Indiana the year after the sanctions expire.

When the Big Ten predictions were redone due to the penalties levied against Penn State many prognosticators still showed Penn State ahead of Indiana for this coming 2012 season.

[vuweathernerd]

Hell, Penn State will probably be competitive with Indiana the year after the sanctions expire.

When the Big Ten predictions were redone due to the penalties levied against Penn State many prognosticators still showed Penn State ahead of Indiana for this coming 2012 season.

boy, goes to show just how much faith they have in iu football... wonder if valpo could run with them.

[valpotx]

SMU's penalty was much harsher.  It took until recently for the program to get back on its feet and into a bowl game, after being one of the top teams in their prime (albeit due to paying players). 

We will see how long it takes PSU to get back to prominence, but I don't think it will take nearly as long as SMU.  PSU football deserved what it got after trying to conceal the negative publicity a child molestor on staff would cause for the program.  For those in the media that feel this should not have been an NCAA football matter, they are gravely wrong.  It has come to the forefront that JoePa was a joke of a person, not practicing what he preached in regards to character...burn the statue....

[SadersofthelostArc]

So, let me get this straight....people's outrage at little boys being raped is simply a product of us all wanting to feel moral in an overly-permissive, sexually-charged culture?  It's NOT that it is entirely heinous, repulsive, etc. 

Also, just so I'm tracking with you LaPorte, the football coach of a football power covering up the child rape perpetrated by an assistant football coach in football facilities and on football bowl trips was not a football issue? 

Reading your comments, one might walk away thinking the victims in this whole child-rape thing are a handful of kids who might not get a D1 scholarship (God forbid), not the children who were sexually violated under the watch of Joe Paterno, among others.

Thanks LAA, this really cleared some things up for me.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

 

So, let me get this straight....people's outrage at little boys being raped is simply a product of us all wanting to feel moral in an overly-permissive, sexually-charged culture?  It's NOT that it is entirely heinous, repulsive, etc. Also, just so I'm tracking with you LaPorte, the football coach of a football power covering up the child rape perpetrated by an assistant football coach in football facilities and on football bowl trips was not a football issue? Reading your comments, one might walk away thinking the victims in this whole child-rape thing are a handful of kids who might not get a D1 scholarship (God forbid), not the children who were sexually violated under the watch of Joe Paterno, among others. Thanks LAA, this really cleared some things up for me.

I refuse to debate anything with an intellectual lightweight who can't read correctly.

[SadersofthelostArc]

Typical response...but this is one of those times where no debate is needed.  I'm completely fine coming down on the opposite side of this argument as you. 

[LaPorteAveApostle]

I'm simply waiting for you to have your latest hissy-fit, quit the board, and leave it to the adults.

[SadersofthelostArc]

You're not very perceptive for an intellectual heavyweight.

[LaPorteAveApostle]

Probably not, but perceptive enough to recognize a guy who sits around his parents' basement making avatars all day when I see one.

Oh yeah!  Speaking of, Keith Freeman said to make his say "This Is Raider Country" at the bottom.

[bbtds]

I'm simply waiting for you to have your latest hissy-fit, quit the board, and leave it to the adults.

You're not very perceptive for an intellectual heavyweight.

Ooh, tough talk from a guy who sits around his parents' basement making avatars all day. 

Btw, Keith Freeman said to make his say "This Is Raider Country" at the bottom.

Can you imagine at one time many of the posters thought these two were the same person.   

[LaPorteAveApostle]

You know, that's the most galling part of this whole thing.  I wasn't going to bring that up.

gah.

Meanwhile, now that I've been recalled to the world of adulthood by bbtds (thank you), I'd like to link to Michael Buckner, the nation's most prominent attorney on NCAA cases (1) before and (2) after the sanctions were announced.

1.  http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/07/22/michael-l-buckner-law-firm-statement-on-reports-of-ncaa-sanctions-against-penn-state/#comments

2.  http://michaelbucknerlaw.wordpress.com/2012/07/23/michael-l-buckner-law-firm-response-to-ncaa-penalties-in-penn-state-case/

Once again, I understand the pitchfork-waving, torch-brandishing mob's desire for justice.  I also know that its wrath is misplaced (here, as so often elsewhere).

[SadersofthelostArc]

Alright, let's stop arguing.  I post occasionally a) just to have fun with some of you and b) to talk VU hoops.  While I'm serious about my disagreement with you over Penn State, most of the time I'm simply not serious. 

And for the record, my house (or my parents' house for that matter) doesn't have a basement.

[SadersofthelostArc]

[LaPorteAveApostle]

that would make me feel much better.  so thanks!

(even moreso if you don't call them lady 'saders in real life either.)

[bbtds]

Getting Penn State where it really hurts. Their advertising sponsors are starting to bail on them.

http://www.nwitimes.com/sports/college/penn-state-loses-one-sponsor-others-could-follow/article_0c226553-c239-5c2e-891d-51bd7ea0163d.html


Also the impact on businesses in State College, PA

http://www.indystar.com/usatoday/article/56455650&usatref=sportsmod?odyssey=mod|newswell|text|Indianapolis%20Sports|p

[VULB#62]

Sorry bbtds, but small businesses around State College getting clobbered is not my idea of a just verdict for PSU (unless you believe they also deserve to go bankrupt as a result of the actions of people they may not even know).  What we are seeing is the ripple effect of a hasty decision that, IMO was arrived at by the NCAA for PR reasons.  Normally an NCAA investigation and the resultant findings take many months and sometimes years.  This was a linching.

Don't get me wrong. I totally agree with you and others calling for strong penalties.  It just bothers me that it is coming so fast and so recklessly.  What documented NCAA investigations have been completed?  What NCAA due process has been followed.  What ramifications have been thoughtfully considered? 

Is PSU guilty of lack of institutional control?  Yes.  But a lot more than the PSU athletic and university administration have been whacked by what I believe to be hastily imposed penalties. When, in our society, do innocent, non-participating bystanders (kids and businesses to name a couple) get penalized for not being involved?  There were plenty of financial penalties and there could have been even more penalties directed at the UNIVERSITY (IMO the the real culprit). 

Force a cleaned house -- new everything and everyone (FB, athletics and key university -- except the players). Force all FB revenue to go to supporting anti-abuse, ....and other similar penalties.  Dedicate any bowl shares to the same for a certain period of time (4 years?).

But screwing the community, the players, and the students is not my idea of justice.

[SadersofthelostArc]

Is there any scenario in which the NCAA should take away scholarships, bowl games, television money, etc?  Did you guys have a problem with the punishments received by OSU, USC, etc?

[crusaderjoe]

What NCAA due process has been followed. 

Sorry '62, I don't mean to keep quoting you, but you bring up some interesting topics with your posts.  In regard to your due process concerns, it is unclear whether the NCAA was absolutely required to afford due process in this instance given the holding found in NCAA v. Tarkanian  (NCAA as an organization was deemed to be a private actor and therefore in general not required to afford due process under the 14th amendment).  Plus, as I understand it, Penn State already agreed to whatever sanctions were going to be given by the NCAA, so such an argument regarding PSU and due process concerns is probably moot now anyway. 

See:  http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=488&invol=179

[bbtds]

In rereading the story in the NWI Times I realized that my own bank was one of the sponsors that is staying with Penn State.

PNC Financial Services Group issued a statement after the July 12 release of the Freeh report that its "ongoing engagement with the university signals our support of the students and traditions of Penn State. ... We believe that the university will learn from this experience and become stronger."

So as of this morning I will be switching my bank to another one in Indy. And I'm officially letting them know that it is because of their sponsorship of Penn State. I encourage other posters that have PNC accounts to do the same.

[valpo95]

I can weigh in here, on the ground in State College.   I work as an assistant professor at Penn State, though I don't speak for the university and had no interaction with the athletic department.  First and foremost, the actions of Jerry Sandusky are the main crime here, and everyone feels for those victims.

The NCAA is known for being a rules-based organization, and usually they take a long time to investigate, discuss and ultimately sanction a university that has been found to be in violation of one of the rules.  I have a problem with the speed of their decision-making here, and the obvious lack of due process.  In a criminal proceeding, assuming there is a conviction, the sentencing phase is separated by some time so as not to act in the heat of the moment.  In fact, Sandusky has not been sentenced yet, though everyone agrees he will spend the rest of his life in prison.  The NCAA has chosen to act in haste, and has given no real opportunity for due process in this situation:  There are no new crimes being committed that would require them to have acted on Monday – the sanctions could have been implemented a week from now, or two weeks from now, or two months from now.  The only possible exception is that some of the existing players might wish to transfer before the start of training camp, but none of those players or coaches had anything to do with the crimes.  So, why not let Penn State respond to the NCAA's letter of inquiry, or at least give Penn State a deadline to respond and then go through the normal process?
 
To those who say that due process is not violated because President Erickson signed the consent decree, at the end of last week, Erickson stated that Penn State was working through the Freeh report (that came out a week earlier) and was working on their response to the inquiry.  This Sunday, the Paterno statue was removed, so I can imagine the President was also involved in some deliberations on that subject as well given how strongly some still feel about Coach Paterno.  Erickson reported that the alternative given should he not immediately sign the consent decree was an immediate "death penalty" to the football program, for up to four years.  This doesn't seem like a real choice.

I should also mention that Penn State authorized and paid for the Freeh Report, in order to try and clean up its own issues and find recommendations to improve.  If the NCAA can take these unilateral actions based on the publication of a report, what will happen the next time a university is accused of any kind of impropriety?  Will the university bring in a respected investigative team and publish all of the results, or tell the NCAA to do its own investigation?

Regardless of what they said, the NCAA is opening up a whole new arena for future infractions that are outside of the NCAA rules.  Let's say an assistant volleyball coach has a drinking problem, and the coach and athletic director know about it, but do not dismiss that individual.  He retires, and runs summer volleyball camps at the university.  One day, that coach kills a student in a drunk driving crash, and the authorities figure out that the coach was also involved in a tragic hit and run in a decade earlier. Clearly, there might be civil liability for some of those acts, just like there will be civil liability for the university and its former leaders for what happened in the Sandusky situation.  However, will the NCAA immediately sanction that volleyball program and take away wins?  Will they demand a special fund be set up to promote drunk driving education, a reduction in scholarships and prohibit the volleyball team from competing in the post season for four years?   Admittedly, the analogy is not perfect, and I am not excusing the failure to report suspected abuse that happened at Penn State and the tragic consequences that followed.  But this paragraph is about the new areas that the NCAA might be taking on, and it seems they are anxious to do so.
   
To those who say that this is way worse than SMU, they had been previously investigated, warned and sanctioned by the NCAA and still chose to violate specific rules.  Perhaps the "death penalty" is appropriate for repeat offenders.  Yet no program at Penn State had ever had a hint of an infraction before this, and the University represented much of what was good about both academics and college sports.  In addition, none of the people responsible for this are in positions of power and several are under criminal prosecution.
 
I think everyone expected an appearance before the infractions committee and some meaningful penalties.  Things got out of hand, and people in power failed to do the right thing when they had the chance.    Why the NCAA had to act so quickly, with so little time between the Freeh Report and a sentencing is beyond me.  In the end, the NCAA is taking advantage of this situation to show that they are doing something now, piling on in the language of other observers.  Yet they seem to be using a chainsaw to perform heart surgery, a heart that is already broken for the victims, angry at Sandusky, and saddened by the clear failure of respected leaders to lead when they should have done so. 

[SadersofthelostArc]

Doesn't PSU have lawyers, and probably pretty good ones?  If this was such an untenable situation presented by the NCAA, why didn't the lawyers step in and advise the school not to sign anything yet?

Also, I think PSU lost the right to impose their own sanctions considering that this was such a top-down problem...the BOT, the president, the athletic staff....I think they've lost any trust. 

[valpotx]

Yes, PSU hadn't been warned before.  However, 14+ years of a pervasive behavior of knowingly looking the other way (from the top down) while a POS human being abused children in your athletic buildings and on athletic trips, seems to have sped this up quite a bit.  The SMU stuff was over a few short years, and though you can't say it is comparing apples to apples in regards to violations, was dealt with in a manner befitting the crimes.  I feel that is the same with PSU, in that they deserved what was levied on them, perhaps deserving a worse penalty.  Though it is not the textbook rule in regards to 'unfair advantage,' think of how many less top athletes would have attended PSU since at least 1998, had they known the university was complicit to a sexual predator's whims??  How would the football program and public have dealt with knowing about JoePa's looking the other way if this was 8-10 years ago?  Would he have been forced into retirement, thus taking away the recruiting tool of a 'living legend' coaching your child?  God rest his soul, but my grandpa would be rolling over in his grave if he saw the attention PSU was getting right now.  After being a professor there for several years, he had nothing but great things to say about the school and administration.

[StlVUFan]

Been way overworked and heavy into my 1st place White Sox for a week or two, but as I sit here waiting for a build to finish (sometime before the end of the month, please ), I'm catching up on the board.  I must admit that I didn't read every single post here carefully, just kind of skimmed a bit.  I'll try not to skewer anybody because of that.

This scandal has been .... something that I can't quite put the right words to.

As to the punishment that was doled out, I think this is the most compelling assessment I've found (from a Summit League beat writer): http://tvfury.wordpress.com/2012/07/24/fairness-a-fallacy-in-penn-state-case/

A fairly common method for judging something to be valid is when half the audience thinks it's too harsh and the other half thinks it's too lenient.  Opinion writers often use this as a measure to see if they are on the right track.  It's a terribly imprecise measure, but it's available here.  For everyone who thinks it was unfair, I can show you someone who thinks it was a slap on the wrist.  For example, it is child's play for wealthy donors to replace every bit of the monetary penalty doled out, and judging by the "us against the world" mentality that is already taking shape there, I wouldn't be a bit surprised.

My own take is that this story is far from over, so I don't lose a lot of sleep over whether the punishment was too harsh or too lenient.  Because the punishment ain't over yet.  Not by a long shot.  It doesn't really matter what's fair.  What's fair punishment isn't going to matter.  Holy hell is coming to town.  What we've seen so far is still the appetizer.  And the voluminous civil suits are the salad.  The main course has already been alluded to: one or more federal investigations.  That's the hammer, right there.  You ain't seen nothing yet.

By the way, "innocent" being punished for the sins of those who came before them is hardly a new concept.  It's as old as the bible.  I wager half the people trapped in captivity in Babylon had little if anything to do with the corruption of the kingdom of Israel that led to its downfall.  Guess what?  The prophets didn't care.  Communities get punished, because communities enable sin, and I feel that is true here.

Sorry, LAA, but I can't go along with you on this.  The culture there was built and fed by *everyone* there, and while new recruits might be unwitting in this, they have signed up for the community that nurtured the "Football is King" environment that enabled Sandusky to operate with impunity for so long.  It's the culture that needs to be cleansed there -- and probably a lot of other places too.  I'll agree that the NCAA is also corrupt and hypocritical.  Nothing about this vindicates them in the least.  But, the businesses in Happy Valley benefited from that culture, and they no doubt contributed to it, this culture that enabled a predator to prosper in his evil.  No one will be left unscathed.  Fair it may not be.  True it will be, and it probably wouldn't matter if the NCAA had stayed out of it.

I was fascinated by the startling trial verdict.  Talk about a home-court advantage that could not withstand a powerful enemy: by the time the jury was ready to deliberate, 9 of the 12 had significant ties to PSU.  Pennsylvania was at the time the only state in the USA to bar expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases (that is scheduled to expire soon), which was widely viewed as a significant impediment to the prosecution, allowing the defense to hammer the victims on why they continued contact with the defendant even after the alleged assault -- a twisted, cruel argument that cleverly leveraged the defendant's ability to groom his disadvantaged victims.

And yet, the defendant was roundly convicted.  For what it's worth, my own interpretation (right or wrong) was that there was no pressure felt by the jury to acquit Sandusky because he was not the only target in the whole affair.  He had become expendable.  If anything, the jury of 3/4ths PSU friends might have felt that convicting him might just defuse the larger investigation.  He was a scapegoat.  I do think the jury objectively assessed the evidence (they did acquit on 3 of the 48 counts).  I think it's interesting that they felt *free* to be objective.

I think this is one of those rare moments when everybody's true colors come out.  I've even seen articles on how the media (national and otherwise) contributed to that same culture, and I would have to agree.  No one's hands are clean.  This is one of those moments in history when there is opportunity for renewal -- just another in a long line of such moments that I suspect will be squandered somehow.