Penn State Goings-On

[The Brain]

Papa Smurf >>> Papa Hemingway

[Eddie Teach]

Papa Doc would bust a cap in both their asses.

[The Brain]

Nut >>> cap.

[sbr]

Dr Ed Ray, president and chairman of the NCAA's executive committee and Emmert's right hand man today is the President of Oregon State University.  He did an interview on Portland local sports talk radio this afternoon.  It is pretty good for anyone who is really interested in what happened today.  It is just over 11 minutes long.

Some key points:

Penn State waived their right to due process.  This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.

http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3

[dps]

No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.

I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.

[sbr]

No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.

I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.

Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?

That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert.  You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.

[sbr]

This weeks SI cover, according to Twitter.

[CountDeMoney]

OMG and on top of everything else, they get the SI Cover Curse.  What a kick in the nuts.

[dps]

No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.

I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.

Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?

That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert.  You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.

Yeah, you had posted the quote from the article.  Wasn't my intent to make it look like it was a statement you'd made.

[sbr]

No one has the standing or the authority to challenge what Erickson and the university have agreed to do.

I would think that the state of Pennsylvania itself would have standing.

Is that from the quote about the decree of consent?

That was written by Lester Munson, ESPN's legal expert.  You would have to take it up with him, or another law-talker familiar with the decree.

Yeah, you had posted the quote from the article.  Wasn't my intent to make it look like it was a statement you'd made.

I didn't think so but I got confused at first. 

[jimmy olsen]

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."

The Freeh report was a much more thorough investigation than the NCAA could ever hope to make. The NCAA has relied upon federal investigations before because they can make more thorough investigations. This is the same principal. Furthermore the Freeh report was sponsored by Penn state itself, this was essentially self reporting.

[grumbler]

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.

I've been following Black Shoes Diaries for years, and agree that the current stuff is just unbelievable.

A good friend of mine is a Penn State grad (though never a fan of Paterno) and his main beef is with the lengthy bowl ban.  He thinks that will hurt worse than the scholarship reductions.

[crazy canuck]

Some key points:

Penn State waived their right to due process.  This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.

http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3

The bit about PSU "waiving" their rights to due process is interesting.  The person being interviewed didnt say that.  It was something the interviewer said in the preamble.  Does anyone know what the interviewer was basing that comment on?

Also interesting to me is that someone earlier in the thread asserted PSU had agreed with the contents of the report.  But the person being interviewed said PSU "released the report without comment" and from that the NCAA took it that PSU was agreeing.  Two quite different things.

As I learn more about this case three things become apparent:

1) The community surrounding PSU (from which the PSU board is selected) in financially dependant on PSU college football - much like many other small communities in the US are dependant on college sports.

2) the PSU board has no option but to stay in the NCAA if it wants to keep its football program both for the economic viability of the community and the University since the NCAA has a monopoly on major football.

3) Given this monopoly position it is imperative that the NCAA proceed in a fair manner when deciding any disciplinary matters.

[Valmy]

]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."

Um yes there has been a case almost exactly like this.  The Baylor case where the coach tried to cover up a murder to keep his guy playing, just like Penn State covered up for Sandusky and allowed him to keep coaching.  Granted Baylor school cooperated alot more thoroughly (I think they blew the whistle on their coach IIRC) but that is a BS excuse.  Considering how obvious the violations are it does seem odd the NCAA would do some sort of bending of the rules.  The old rules allowed it to hammer Baylor Basketball with very similar penalties (well...except for the size of the fine).  So surely if they had left the old procedures in place the resulting penalties probably would have been similar.  Why did they do it in this case?  Any speculation?

[sbr]

Some key points:

Penn State waived their right to due process.  This is the very first question and within the first few seconds of the interview.
It sounds like schools would have to have an open scholarship to offer one to a PSU player.

http://podcast.1080thefan.com/kfxx2/3574419.mp3

The bit about PSU "waiving" their rights to due process is interesting.  The person being interviewed didnt say that.  It was something the interviewer said in the preamble.  Does anyone know what the interviewer was basing that comment on?

It wasn't really in the preamble, it was in the first question he asked.  The fact that Dr Ray didn't correct him tells me that it was a true statement.  I assume as a lawyer your mind doesn't work that way though.

And I don't know where he got that from, I haven't spent much time looking around.

Also interesting to me is that someone earlier in the thread asserted PSU had agreed with the contents of the report.  But the person being interviewed said PSU "released the report without comment" and from that the NCAA took it that PSU was agreeing.  Two quite different things.

From a different written interview with Dr Ray by the local newspaper:

"Q: How have the past few days and weeks been for you, knowing the enormity of the Sandusky scandal and its consequences?

A: This has been a rolling process of discovery of just how tragic the circumstances were at Penn State University. It began back in November 2011, and we learned more over time, through the Sandusky investigation and trial. I think it culminated with the Freeh Report that was commissioned and accepted without exception by the university. It was the release of that report and the acceptance of the findings by the university itself and the concurrence with the NCAA that led us to move forward with deliberations over whether or not it would be appropriate to create a set of punitive and corrective actions by the NCAA to be imposed on Penn State University – hopefully in a consent decree, where the university accepts proposed actions we put forward, and that's what happened."

I assume commissioning a report and accepting without exception is good enough?

As I learn more about this case three things become apparent:

1) The community surrounding PSU (from which the PSU board is selected) in financially dependant on PSU college football - much like many other small communities in the US are dependant on college sports.

2) the PSU board has no option but to stay in the NCAA if it wants to keep its football program both for the economic viability of the community and the University since the NCAA has a monopoly on major football.

3) Given this monopoly position it is imperative that the NCAA proceed in a fair manner when deciding any disciplinary matters.

Very true.  I think this is a large part of the reason they didn't shut the program down.  There are a huge number of business and individuals who make their living through Penn State football and shuttering the program, no matter how much it was deserved, would have had disastrous effects on the Happy Valley economy.  You might even be able to say they aren't completely innocent in the matter, for letting Paterno and the program get so important that these things were allowed to happen, but I just can't see anyone having the stones to make that decision.