Penn State Goings-On

[Rasputin]

BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness.  I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.

But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities.  Why was it only denied in this particular case?

The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."

[CountDeMoney]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

Berkut Paul does have a point, however;  the NCAA and the Big Whatever Number They Are Now are voluntary organizations, based upon mutually-agreed upon rules and codes of conduct by all members.  If Penn State doesn't like the administrative ramifications of its own conduct, it doesn't have to be a member of either.

Maybe now the Quakers can get PSU on the schedule, while the getting's good for the next few years.  They won't have a better chance.

[Rasputin]

The NCAA is a completely voluntary association - PSU had as much (honestly likely much more say) in how it runs and its processes as any other institution that is a member.

The procedures they have defined have been defined by the very members that make up the NCAA. How can you just state they are unfair on the basis that they don't meet some legal standard? If legal standards were adequate to meet the needs of the member institutions of the NCAA, there would never be any reason to form the NCAA in the first place.

They had rules and fair processes to which all members agree to submit. The NCAA openly admits ignoring its own rules in this case because of the exceptional nature of the case.

[Rasputin]

It is easy to ignore due process when one wishes to achieve a quick decision that would meet the approval of the vast majority.  Due process is hard.  It is also the most just process we have been able to devise.  If you want quick and expedient by all means ignore due process.  If you want good sound decision making you do so at your peril.

Based on what Valmy said, it seems this is not the first time.  I surmise from that fact that the NCAA proceeds in this way because it can.  That does not make it right. 

The other issue your question raises is an interesting one and that is to what extent should a domestic administrative process (ie one that does not derive its authority from statute) be required to comply with fundamental principles of procedural fairness.  Its a good question.  From a legal point of view a suppose the answer is there is no way to force them (going back to my observation that they ignore procedural fairness because they can) but if a domestic administrative body wishes to make good decisions then, again, they ignore procedural fairness at their peril and perhaps the members who make up the NCAA might be concerned about that.

I disagree. Due process rights are one thing when we are discussing deploying the power of the state against someone or something. That isn't at stake here. I read in one article that the NCAA was empowered by a group of presidents to act beyond its ordinary powers. That seems reasonable to me. If I'm a member of a neighborhood tennis club that does background checks etc. and strict character requirements for membership, I sure as hell don't want to go through the time and cost of a review if some notorious criminal applies. I also wouldn't want to go through a long drawn out process of expulsion if a member admitted to some heinous behavior--especially following rules that weren't written with such conduct in mind.

I say this with my first reaction as skeptical of the punishment. But it is one thing to require the government to have a list of laws and regulations covering almost every circumstance to ensure it isn't prejudiced against individuals. I'm sure the laws and regulations in the US run 100s of thousands of pages. But if we demand the same standards from private groups including umbrellas under which athletic competitions are held we will be paralyzed by red tape more than we  already are. Sometimes it is useful to be able to step back, cut back through all the rules, and make a decision.

your analysis fails because the NCAA enjoys monopolistic powers in college athletics. This implicit exemption from anti trust is indeed how congress occasionally grumbles that it has the right to mandate a playoff or that the Bcs must include Boise state from time to time.

[Rasputin]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

Bad facts make bad law.

We all accept that the NCAA can ignore its own rules and regulate non athletic conduct within its membership by fiat because we all like the result. What happens when the NCAA does it again and the result is not so clearly appropriate?

[crazy canuck]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

Berkut Paul does have a point, however;  the NCAA and the Big Whatever Number They Are Now are voluntary organizations, based upon mutually-agreed upon rules and codes of conduct by all members.  If Penn State doesn't like the administrative ramifications of its own conduct, it doesn't have to be a member of either.

Maybe now the Quakers can get PSU on the schedule, while the getting's good for the next few years.  They won't have a better chance.

My point is that even voluntary organizations (and those who belong to them) have an interest in administrative fairness being observed when the said organization engages in discipinary type decision making.

edit: another interesting point that is raised by Rasputin is that the organization isnt entirely voluntary but acts more like a monopoly.

[alfred russel]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

Its funny how the lawyers among us think that fairness needs to exist in court cases. 

There are those of us that are less than enamored with our justice system.

[grumbler]

No, that really is what "Players who are eligible won't be restricted by another institution's scholarship limits if they choose to transfer" means, because that's what it says.  Players who choose to transfer won't count against the scholarship limit of the school they are transferring to this year. 

E:  Didn't see that post there.  I'm glad we agree. 

You are quoting reports about the NCAA, not the Big Ten.  Given that, we do agree.

[sbr]

Does this change anything with the law-talkers in the house?

http://espn.go.com/new-york/ncf/story/_/id/8191027/penn-state-hit-60-million-fine-4-year-bowl-ban-wins-dating-1998

What did Penn State sign?

Munson: When Penn State president Rodney Erickson signed the consent decree imposed by the NCAA, he and the school agreed not only to the punishments but also to the monitoring, the supervision and to an enforcement process. This is not just a settlement contract. It is the document that governs enforcement and provides for penalties if Penn State screws up.

These agreements are typically negotiated by two organizations in the middle of a dispute. There is no indication of a negotiation or even a minimal role by Penn State or its president and his lawyers. A typical decree would say that Penn State neither admits nor denies wrongdoing. This decree is all about wrongdoing with Penn State admitting everything.

Consent decrees are ordinarily sterile legal documents, but this one expresses outrage. The decree states the evidence against Penn State "presents an unprecedented failure of institutional integrity leading to a culture in which a football program was held in higher esteem than the values of the institution, the values of the NCAA, the values of higher education, and, most disturbingly, the values of human decency."

Penn State did not negotiate this document. Penn State surrendered to the terms of this document.

It is possible for a wealthy alumnus, a season-ticket holder, a coach, a taxpayer or even a student-athlete to file a lawsuit challenging the sanctions and the consent decree. But any lawsuits are doomed to failure. Erickson's signature on the consent decree means that the university has agreed to the sanctions and to be bound by them for five years.

No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do. Penn State expressly agrees that it cannot be challenged with "judicial process." Anyone who files a lawsuit would face not only an early dismissal of the case but also the payment of the legal fees incurred by the NCAA and Penn State as they obtain the dismissal. The lawsuit would be an expensive failure.

-- Lester Munson

pdf of the decree:

http://a.espncdn.com/pdf/2012/0723/pennstateconclusions.pdf

[grumbler]

Whether the facts are true or not is immaterial to whether penn state had the right to respond. Perhaps penn state might have indicated freeh missed something material.  Perhaps penn state might have admitted the facts but contested the authority of the NCAA to regulate how penn state deals with the misconduct of a former coach whose heinous misdeeds and the cover up by the school, institutionalizing and aiding in the crime, never provided penn state with a competitive advantage on the field. Perhaps penn state would've just committed suicide like himmler and fallen on its sword. We don't know, but before judgment was rendered we should've.

I'm missing something.  Where was Penn State not given a chance to challenge anything?  The NCAA acted like they always do:  investigation, subject institution response, decision, announcement.  If this is "mob rule" then the term has no meaning.

[alfred russel]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

Bad facts make bad law.

We all accept that the NCAA can ignore its own rules and regulate non athletic conduct within its membership by fiat because we all like the result. What happens when the NCAA does it again and the result is not so clearly appropriate?

I'd hope the NCAA isn't making law here, but if it is, I'd point out that the NCAA apparently got the approval of a group of school presidents first and the worst I can see happening is some school's sports team has to sit out a season. That doesn't strike me as a serious consequence considering the facts around this situation.

[grumbler]

Its funny how the Libertards among us think that fairness need only exist in court cases...

It's funny how the morons among us are always beating up on straw men...

[Scipio]

BB, a fundamental tenant of administrative law is procedural fairness.  I agree with our distinguished southern gent that it was denied in this case.

But NCAA punishments have always had these qualities.  Why was it only denied in this particular case?

The punishments have always seemed arbitrary but there has always been due process for the charged institution. Indeed the articles I've read make clear that the NCAA knowingly dispensed with its own rules to enable itself to dispense summary justice and justified it by stating "there has never been a case like this."

Just further proof that the NCAA is a useless, corrupt institution that has no internal or external oversight.  It kind of reminds me of that other voluntary sports dinosaur, the Olympics.

Fuck sport.  Dueling.  Primitive hunting.  That's the shit.  Bring the food chain back into play.  Let everyone who thinks that physical exertion is the measure of a man measure himself like Papa Hemingway.

[grumbler]

Just further proof that the NCAA is a useless, corrupt institution that has no internal or external oversight.  It kind of reminds me of that other voluntary sports dinosaur, the Olympics.

Fuck sport.  Dueling.  Primitive hunting.  That's the shit.  Bring the food chain back into play.  Let everyone who thinks that physical exertion is the measure of a man measure himself like Papa Hemingway.

You exaggerate for effect, but I agree with the basic thrust of your premise.  I don't like the NCAA:  their rules are contradictory and often self-defeating, and I agree that the Olympics is a marketing abomination that should be nuked from orbit, because that's the only way to be sure.

I just don't think that this case is the poster-child for NCAA crappiness.  The NCAA was careful to isolate Penn State University from the implications of them hammering the ulcer that is the PSU football program (and which PSU utterly failed to address on its own).

The shame here lies on the PSU board.  The simple decision to stand down football for a year to re-evaluate priorities would have drawn the teeth of most of these sanctions, and yet they fumbled it, thinking that merely removing a statute would do the trick.  Mass forced resignations are in order.

[MadBurgerMaker]

g, have you seen some of the stuff members of the PSU board have been saying (could just be one guy, to be fair)?  They're fucking crazy people.  Talking about being stabbed in the back or something similar because the president accepted this punishment and blahblah.

You are quoting reports about the NCAA, not the Big Ten.  Given that, we do agree.

It still means the same thing, no matter which reports are quoted.