Penn State Goings-On

[sbr]

Well there you go, looks like I'm back on the good guys' side. 

[jimmy olsen]

Too bad they didn't get it.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-rodney-erickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

Penn State faced 4-year death penalty
Updated: July 25, 2012, 9:25 PM ET
By Don Van Natta Jr. | ESPN.com

If Penn State had not accepted the package of NCAA sanctions announced Monday, the Nittany Lions faced a historic death penalty of four years, university president Rodney Erickson told "Outside the Lines" on Wednesday afternoon.

In a separate interview, NCAA president Mark Emmert confirmed that a core group of NCAA school presidents had agreed early last week that an appropriate punishment was no Penn State football for four years.

Emmert told Erickson in a phone conversation on July 17 that a majority of the NCAA's leadership wanted to levy the four-year penalty because of Penn State's leaders' roles in covering up the child sexual abuse of former assistant coach Jerry Sandusky.

"Well, that's a pretty tough number to swallow," Erickson said he recalled thinking when told of the four-year possibility by Emmert. "It's unprecedented. It's a blow to the gut; there's no doubt about that ... I couldn't agree to that at all."

Almost immediately after that conversation, intensive discussions between Penn State and the NCAA began in earnest, Erickson said. Penn State lobbied for the NCAA to take the death penalty off the table, and the NCAA described a series of other sanctions, both "punitive and corrective" in nature.

The discussions were so secretive that most members of Penn State's embattled Board of Trustees had no idea they were happening, several trustees said.

Indeed, the trustees had thought Erickson was officially responding to a Nov. 17 letter of questions from the NCAA. In the interview on Wednesday, Erickson said the letter was set aside last week as the discussions between Penn State and the NCAA intensified.

Erickson said if Penn State did not agree to the sanctions, a formal investigation would have begun and the university could have faced a multiyear death penalty, as well as "other sanctions," including a financial penalty far greater than $60 million.

"There were figures that were thrown around that were quite large," he said.

After five days of intense discussions last week, Erickson and Emmert agreed last Sunday to the historic punishment of a $60 million fine, a four-year postseason ban, significant loss of scholarships and the vacating of 14 years of 112 Penn State victories, causing Joe Paterno to fall from first to eighth on the Division I all-time coaches' win list.

The punishment was for the role played by four Penn State leaders -- Paterno, former university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and vice president Gary Schultz -- to conceal Sandusky's child sexual abuse for more than 10 years, as described in the university-commissioned Freeh report.

Erickson's comments were made Wednesday afternoon, shortly before he met with Penn State's Board of Trustees about the terms of the consent decree he signed with the NCAA.

Several trustees said they are furious the board was not given a chance to vote on the agreement, which they say is bad for Penn State. But after meeting Wednesday night, the board said it understands Erickson's decision.

"The Board finds the punitive sanctions difficult and the process with the NCAA unfortunate," the board said in a statement. "But as we understand it, the alternatives were worse as confirmed by NCAA President Mark Emmert's recent statement that Penn State was likely facing a multi-year death sentence. The University and Board resolve to move forward together to recognize the historical excellence in Penn State's academic and athletic programs."

Erickson said his insistence that Penn State must avoid the death penalty was driven in large part with worry over the devastating economic impact of no Saturday afternoon football in central Pennsylvania and the words of newly hired coach Bill O'Brien.

O'Brien said in an interview Wednesday that he told Erickson, "I want to play football and I want to play football on television."

"Both of those things are possible under the sanctions," Erickson said Wednesday. "I think it is not only best for our football program but best for our entire set of sports and intercollegiate athletes to be able to continue on and have the opportunity to play in that stadium and participate."

Erickson said he disagrees with the criticism that the NCAA sanctions are worse than the death penalty.

"I think the death penalty would have been far, far worse for the program and the university over the long run," he said.

While it had been known that Penn State faced a possible multiyear death penalty, the level of NCAA support for a four-year death penalty and the import given to that threat by Erickson and other Penn State leaders were not previously known.

Erickson signed a consent decree that accepted full responsibility for the facts and conclusions of the 267-page Freeh report, a seven-month investigation by the firm of former FBI director Louis Freeh. His investigators interviewed more than 430 witnesses and reviewed more than 3.5 million documents.

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."

The university's discussions with the NCAA last week were so secretive that most trustee members had no idea they were going on, even as late as last Sunday when Erickson and Emmert said the consent decree's terms were finalized.

Some trustees said they hoped the dismantling of Paterno's statue would send a positive message to the NCAA when it considered sanctions. Little did those trustees know, Erickson already had agreed in principle by last Saturday on the "punitive and corrective" sanctions.

Before the Board of Trustees' meeting on Wednesday night, some members said they were considering a bid to overturn the consent decree in court because they don't believe Erickson had the authority to sign it. Erickson consulted with board chairwoman Karen Peetz, acting AD Dave Joyner and several other unnamed members of the board's executive committee, he said Wednesday.

Two trustees said most of the board's members did not find out about the terms of the agreement until Monday morning.

"This is the most significant decision in the history of Penn State, and we didn't know," one trustee said. "The financial impact of this decision could run as high as $500 million, and we didn't know anything about it.

"The Freeh report criticized us for not being in the loop on the Sandusky matter, and we were totally out of the loop on this. What happened to the transparency that we were promised?"

Another trustee said there is a growing movement among some trustees to attempt to challenge the consent decree in court.

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said. "Think of the innocent players hurt by this. They had nothing to do with this and they have to pay the price."

On Wednesday, Erickson said he had consulted with Peetz, the board chairwoman, and the university's outside counsel, about whether he had the authority to negotiate and approve the agreement with the NCAA.

"We felt that I had the authority to engage in that consent decree," Erickson said.

[Neil]

You're worthless, Tim.

[katmai]

You're worthless, Tim.

took you long enough.

[CountDeMoney]

You're worthless, Tim.

Hey, he's your mascot.

[Neil]

You're worthless, Tim.

Hey, he's your mascot.

No he isn't.  I cast him out months ago.

[garbon]

You're worthless, Tim.

Hey, he's your mascot.

[crazy canuck]

So according to you, once a person involved with a university has committed a crime, the NCAA has no jurisdiction over anything that could be even tangentially related?  Can they do anything once the criminal and civil processes are finished?

sbr, unlike Grumbler, I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are not being wilfully dense.

The NCAA has the ability to enforce its own rules.  Here they are not doing that.  The are creating a punishment for something that has occured outside its own rules.

It is possible that a criminal offence could also be a violation of NCAA rules.  For example, if a player is paid in drugs to play for a program there would be a violation of drug laws and a violation of NCAA rules that players cannot be paid anything.

But this is not a case where there is such an overlap.

[Rasputin]

I didnt think so.

Which at least makes you brighter than Grumbler.

Again, the pretense that the NCAA only imposes sanctions for criminal acts (and that, when they do so, that they "usurp" the jurisdiction of the legal system) doesn't make you sound bright at all! 

SMU got the death penalty for acts that were not criminal.  The argument that PSU wouldn't get any sanctions unless they were involved in criminal acts is unsustainable, even if you get two cripples and a moron to agree with you.

Sandusky's behavior wasn't a secret known only to the perp, four men, and the victims.  It was known amongst the custodial staff as well, and I'll bet a lot further.   McQueary know.  The Second Mile knew.

But nobody acted.  Why not?  Because PSU football was to big to take on.  That's what the NCAA targeted, and that's  what they got.  The fact that it was a criminal act and not something else is beside the point.

grumbler

why do you insist on these semantics games? Is it so that you can ignore the point you know he's making and instead tilt at windmills?

smu got the death penalty because their misconduct involved cheating in recruiting such that smu fielded players that would have likely been at competing schools; the ncaa was clearly enforcing well defined rules to which all member institutions agree.

here the only connexity between sandusky and the field is that at the time of the cover up he was a FORMER assistant head coach who was ostensibly allowed on campus to run his charity. Did the Penn State cover up and the allure of the access he had to the football program enable him to continue to commit crimes? Sure it did. This is why a few members of Penn State's management are looking at jail time. Whether they committed a crime is a red herring as to whether the NCAA should be able to punish the football program for their misconduct. There is certainly nothing wrong with concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.

Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.

Had sandusky been an active chemistry professor instead of a former football coach, should the ncaa have still sanctioned the school? What if joe pa beat mrs pa in their home off campus? Whether the ncaa has by its own rules a legitimate basis to act (jurisdiction over the subject matter) in this can remains a genuine question. This is not close to smu. this is the ncaa chosing to punish a member institution for off field conduct that never affected the game. Given that civil suits will punish the Penn State economically and the state of pennsylvania will prosecute the living wrongdoers, what is the ncaa trying to accomplish? why? where is their basis to act under their own rules to which each member institution agreed? and why did they perceive a need to ignore their own procedural rules to act?

do you not agree that these are legitimate questions?

[alfred russel]

We are talking about an association that gets together for amateur athletic competitions. The leadership of one member apparently behaved in an egregious manner that brought negative publicity to the entire association. Their continued membership will bring additional negative publicity (imagine if they won the championship next year). I don't see why the rules in place before, or even if rules were in place before at all, should prohibit the other association members from setting strict standards for continued participation of the offending member to make a public stance that the collective association does not accept the conduct that took place, to possibly deter such action in the future, or simply to give the public the blood it craves.

I think the process could be important if the NCAA as an institution was acting contrary to the wishes of its membership. But all indications are that it consulted with the presidents of its members and I haven't seen evidence that members feel the sanctions are too harsh. At the end of the day, if the members decide they don't like the color blue and vote to arbitrarily kick out every school using that color, that would seem to be their perogative.

[alfred russel]

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.

[grumbler]

grumbler

why do you insist on these semantics games? Is it so that you can ignore the point you know he's making and instead tilt at windmills?

I am trying to get him to actually make a point.  So far, his point seems to be that he, unlike the university presidents that make up the NCAA board of directors and Division I advisory board, doesn't think that the NCAA has any jurisdiction over actions like those taken by PSU, and that, in fact, the NCAA is somehow "usurping" and "tak[ing] over" the job of the legal justice system.  He has given no grounds for such claims.

Whether they committed a crime is a red herring as to whether the NCAA should be able to punish the football program for their misconduct. There is certainly nothing wrong with concurrent or overlapping jurisdiction.

You cannot have my point! 

Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.

Argument by assertion.  It is equally plausible to argue that the coverup allowed Paterno and Curley to keep their jobs and attract recruits who would otherwise have turned down Penn State if it came out that PSU had allowed Sandusky unhindered access to the football program facilities even after PSU officials had grounds to believe that sandusky was a pedophile.

Had sandusky been an active chemistry professor instead of a former football coach, should the ncaa have still sanctioned the school?

Had the sports programs been involved in the coverup, yes.

Whether the ncaa has by its own rules a legitimate basis to act (jurisdiction over the subject matter) in this can remains a genuine question.

Indeed it is.  But the burden is on those who argue that the 36 or so university presidents who decided that the NCAA had jurisdiction were wrong.

Given that civil suits will punish the Penn State economically and the state of pennsylvania will prosecute the living wrongdoers, what is the ncaa trying to accomplish? why? where is their basis to act under their own rules to which each member institution agreed?

Read the NCAA letter I posted above and the FAQ: http://www.ncaa.com/news/football/article/2012-07-23/faq-penn-state-sanctions

and why did they perceive a need to ignore their own procedural rules to act?

Penn State asked them to. Read the FAQ.

do you not agree that these are legitimate questions?

Some of them (indeed, most of them) have already been answered pretty authoritatively.  I don't agree that challenges to the NCAA's authority have been backed with anything authritative; they are, so far as I can see, based on a misapprehension of what "the NCAA" actually is, and ignorance of the facts.

I am willing to be convinced, but so far the arguments against the NCAA's jurisdiction appear to be naked opinions and questions that have already been answered.

[Barrister]

Nonetheless, as it relates to the role of the NCAA sandusky's status as a former coach is equally a red herring. Penn State's misconduct as egregious as it was did not affect the eligibility of anyone on the field and its a stretch to suggest that Penn State would have not had the same recruits if sandusky had been prosecuted in 1998. Sandusky's misconduct did not affect the field of play. curley and sapnner and joe pas misconduct did not affect the field of play.

Sandusky's role as a former coach was certainly not a red herring.

Whil you are correct the conduct did not affect the field of play, it was very clearly because of the fact that Sandusky was a former coach that his actions were covered up.  It was because Sandusky was a former coach (and still had his office) that JoePa was being consulted on what to do.  If Sandusky was a chemistry professor none of this would have gone through Curley or JoePa.

[grumbler]

"They've destroyed the school, as far as I'm concerned," this trustee said.

Wow. Evidence the penalties weren't harsh enough.

Yeah, I read that yesterday, and my immediate though was the same as yours:  the Penn State problem arose because highly placed individuals couldn't tell the difference between the football program and the school, and here is a trustee proving, after the sanctions were put in place to crush that concept, that the offending concept is alive and well.

[The Minsky Moment]

N ice rewording, but it won't fly; the standards are those "associated with wholesome competitive sports," not those merely "relating" to sports.  What is "pretty clear" to you isn't at all clear to others directly in the business.  I'll take their word for it, since your argument seems to be mere assertion.

"associated with" and "related to" are synonyms - both imply a connection with what follows.
If the intent was to have a rule that apply generally to all ethical standards then that following language simply wouldn't have been included.

Penn State agreed that "it accepts the findings of the Freeh report... and acknowledges that those facts constitute a violation of the Constitutional and Bylaw principals..."  I don't know how you can twist that into an assertion that this statement is "different from admitting the rules are really applicable." 
. 

Penn State signed a consent decree upon threat of the death penalty.  If this were real law in a real court (not the NCAA kangaroo court), a neutral arbitrator or judge would give no weight to the mere fact of Penn State's consent if the question was determining whether an action actually fell within the scope of authority.

What individual university Presidents say, even if you had anything to support that, is also irrelevant, as is what 4 of out 5 dentists have to say.  Nor should the NCAA's opinion of its own authority to act be considered determinative of its actual authority - that is asking them to be the judge of their own case.  Without some neutral adjudicator to answer the question, there can be no legitimate exercise, only a raw exercise of ipse dixit authority.  Which is why among those thoughtful people who are not directly interested in the controversy, some have raised questions about this.

I don't agree.  McQueary didn't make a conscious decision to do the wrong thing, I don't think. 

Then we have a very, very big difference of opinion.
I think a decision not to report a rape of a child to the authorities, once he became aware that the people he reported to would not act, is unequivocally wrong, and I suspect I am not the only one who thinks so.

The problem with ignoring the culture and blaming all of the failures at Penn State on a few "bad eggs" is that it doesn't solve the problem.  The problem wasn't just Joe Paterno and his cult of personality; the problem was that people in the know censored themselves because they didn't want to take on the culture of Penn State football. 

What is the "culture of penn state football" and how can it be anything more than the resultant of the actions or deliberate failures to act of individuals?
This is just the use of abstraction to obfuscate.  "People in the know" didn't censor themselves because they thought the Culture Bogeyman was going to get them.  They censored themselves because specific individuals advised them to shut up and they listened.