Aceinthehole

I'm not saying I agree, but you guys have a good point that maybe the program should have been give the “death penalty” and shut down for a year or two.

But this is the exact source of my problem with the NCAA in this matter! The NCAA’s determination and punishment in this case is capricious and arbitrary. The basis for the specific punishment they handed out has no basis in any of their existing policies and procedures. On one hand you could argue they were too harsh, on the other it wasn't harsh enough. The NCAA doesn't have any standards to which this situation applies - because it was a CRMINAL matter and not a compliance issue.

The NCAA brass basically sat in a conference room and "decided" what they thought was fair. It was no different than a meeting of the Five Families to arbitrate a mafia dispute. And face it, Penn State just wants to move on so there is no way they appeal this decision, even though it is the right thing to do.

There are just no way for the NCAA to apply policy and justify their actions. It was a public relations move and nothing more.

The Magic Man

Doesn't the NCAA have a "lack of institutional control" provision? At the end of the day, this whole tragedy happened because the football program got so big and influential that it created a culture where protecting the image of the program was more important than protecting kids from being raped. If that isn't a lack of institutional control, then the term is meaningless.

SaltySeawolf

Why weren't the crimes reported by Paterno and the PS administration? Because it would have caused a black eye to the football program. Countless boys were then raped and fondled over the ensuing years due to there not being any report done. Id say the NCAA is well within their rights to hammer Penn St. If the football program's interests weren't put ahead of the abused boys welfare and interests then a lot of the damage the pedophile comitted could and should have been avoided.

UVM Hoop Cat

Talking about this makes me disgusted, but a number of adults essentially allowed one monster to rape children for a number of years.

I mean, you see a child being raped...and you're "not sure what to do".....I can't even begin to understand how another human being, let alone multiple, do not know what to do in that situation.

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

BU Fan 84

Paterno only recommended that they not go to the police, right? The AD and President discussed it with him and decided not to contact police after that discussion. That is not a lack of institutional control. If the President or board of trustees member(s) make the ultimate decision on this, based on advice from the head football coach, it seems to me that there is total institutional control. Now if Paterno had never told the AD, or the AD never told the President and someone within the athletic department quashed all this, it would be lack of institutional control because Penn St. lost control of its athletic department. In this case, the institution was in control and decided it was not best for PSU to report this. It was not a case of the athletic department running wild. It is not in the jurisdiction of the NCAA to dictate to colleges around the country what they can or cannot do, only what their athletic departments can or cannot do.

Aceinthehole

"control" over athletic compliance issue - not control over criminal actions.

As other writers have said, the issue at Penn State wasn't a "lack of institutional control" - it was the opposite. The criminal conspiracy that transpired was due to the absolute complete control at the highest levels of the university - President, VP, AD, football coach.

None of the victims of this horrific crime were student-athletes at Penn State. Again, I don't see a nexus of these criminal matters as it relates to the NCAA's role as a governing body for intercollegiate athletics. The role of the NCAA is to promote amateurism, maintain academic standards, and ensure fair competition among member schools. The NCAA is not a law enforcement body.

nycwolf

guys Penn state was the wild west. Football players getting into fights(i think arrested) and no punishment except an administrator resigned because of philosophical difference(whether she did it on her own or was forced to resign we will never know), CHILDREN GETTING RAPED no punishment for anyone not even a single anonymous email to the police. The vitcims were not student athletes but the guy breaking the law was a member of the staff and doing it in Penn State locker room. the head coach found out that kids were being RAPED and not a single thing was done. When you help a man rape children you and your program have serious issues. This is the definition of lack of institutional control. obviously some of you guys dont have kids, neices or nephews. My question is if paternio would let a rapist rape children just to win game or protect his program what else would he do? give money, give grades out, hire prostitutes for them? the answer is everything.

Aceinthehole

Everyone is disgusted by what happened. No one has condoned what happened. The things that happened are very disturbing and unspeakable to most of us.

But let's be clear - this debate is about the NCAA's role for issuing penalties. The fact is no players and most coaches knew NOTHING of what was happening. It was hidden from them, by conspirators, who are employees of Penn State.

No Penn State student-athletes were victims, perpetrators, or witnesses to the crimes - so what is the nexus to the NCAA?
How does anything that happened have a connection to football games played by student-athletes that knew nothing of what had happened?

- A public employee of Penn State committed heinous acts (state crimes).
- His supervisors, also employees of Penn State, hid these actions from the police.
- Charges have been filed, the guilty convicted, and additional defendants await trial.

- What 'institutional control' is the NCAA addressing that doesn't fall under the direct legal jurisdiction and prerogative of the State of Pennsylvania?
- What independent investigations did the NCAA conduct and what were their findings?
- What specific NCAA rules were violated and how does it relate to the NCAA’s mission?

The "institutional control" clause relates directly to the university's conduct in monitoring and enforcing NCAA regulation, and I think many people agree that the NCAA is grossly misapplying its authority and is expanding their influence outside of their core responsibilities.

Does anyone think a non-for-profit 5013(c) organization like the NCAA is better suited to address this issue, than the Courts, Legislature, and Governor of the State of Pennsylvania? How is the NCAA actually punishing the guilty individuals and what redress are they providing to the victims?

It is the role of the Governor to implement harsh restrictions and oversight over the entire university, and he should fight vigorously to keep the NCAA out.

BU Fan 84

You are exactly right. I wonder why Penn St. accepted these punishments without a lawsuit? Obviously to make sure they didn't look bad in public perception, but is it worth it? I think the negatives caused by accepting punishment from the NCAA outweighs the benefit of trying not to have a bad public perception.

Aceinthehole

And not only should the NCAA restrained to act entirely, but the did the opposite and made a rush to take action. The Freeh report is was less than a week old. There are still multiple people accused and awaiting trial. This is no close to being done for Penn State.

The NCAA went out of the way to be heavy handed. They didn't follow any of their established policies and procedure.

Give an example of when the NCAA took similar action against a school that had not violated an NCAA regulation?
When was the last time the NCAA acted so quickly, and without including the Infractions Committee?

The answer to both is NEVER. The NCAA violated its own established procedures and due process, yet they are give final judgement on Penn State?

http://content.usatoday.com/communit...oad-language/1

UVM Hoop Cat

Do I think the NCAA acted appropriately? Of course- if anything, I'd like to have seen the season canceled for a few years as well.

If Penn State is disappointed and unhappy with the decision reached by the NCAA, its process, and the sanctions, then they should leave the NCAA- nobody is forcing them to be a part of the NCAA.

The NCAA certainly doesn't need Penn State.

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

UVM Hoop Cat

Like usual, I did not find anything of value in Bilas' comments in that article.

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

BU Fan 84

Incorrect. All of this. Spoken like a man who doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about, but isn't letting that stop him. Take a sports law class, where you can learn all about Penn St.'s remedies and why the NCAA acted inappropriately. Also, go back and read Bilas' comments, because he has a much better understanding of the issues at hand. And he is correct.

UVM Hoop Cat

You're wrong. I understand completely- I'm just on the opposite side as you- I'm on Emmert and the NCAA committee's side on this one.

It's important to remember- when people are wondering why the NCAA acted swiftly and harshly- Penn State commissioned the Freeh report, and accepted and signed off on its findings- which as we all know were quite damning. PSU had an opportunity to dispute the findings, but chose not to, presumably because much like the case against Sandusky- there was a mountain of evidence showing wrongdoing.

By dealing with this swiftly, as Emmert pointed out there was no compelling reason for the NCAA to do an additional investigation that would have been time consuming and redundant. Best for both the NCAA and PSU to act quickly IMO.

I think this is a really good article on the situation where you have people viewing it from both sides that essentially coming to the conclusion that yes- it's the right thing to do.

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2..._ruling_m.html

__________________
"Let's win this game for all the small schools that never had a chance to get here"
- Hoosiers,
& UVM mens basketball NCAA's 2005

NU Hoop Fan

Why didn't Penn State sue? Here's my $0.02 on it...

(the attorneys on this board can correct me) but in my mind it's simple.

With the Freeh report, they uncovered a lot of information that they put in their report. They also (like the Mitchell Report and other investigative reports I've written) had inherent limitations on what they could do. They likely had a bunch of loose ends they didn't have the ability to tie down because of incomplete information, inability to talk to people, get complete data, etc.

With a lawsuit, there's a very wide band of discovery that will go on and witnesses can't hide behind anything - because there may be subpoena power. There would be extensive (and costly) discovery that would likely go well beyong whatever Louis Freeh's highly qualified team uncovered.

Rather than have a very public lawsuit and possible trial - Penn State hedged its bets and took the punishment it was given.

I stand in the corner of "Penn State had a lack of institutional control" as being well within the guidelines of the NCAA. I re-read Northeastern's violation report from the NCAA, and the phrase "Failed to Demonstrate Appropriate Institutional Control" was cited numerous times. ANYONE who knows anything about how the NCAA works, knows that this is their catch all.

The NCAA Regs don't say "don't cover up allegations of child molestation" - nor do I think they should. The tone and culture at Penn State allowed the cover up to occur. It's a total "tone at the top" issue - and that's one sign that any entity is going to have a problem.

As for the "NCAA didn't do its own investigation" drivel, I've done a bunch of investigations for publicly traded corporations where the Board of Directors hired independent legal counsel, who hired my firm to do a forensic accounting investigation. We did our work, and with counsel presented the findings to the Board of Directors, who then were advised that we had an obligation to inform the SEC. We met with the SEC, answered their questions, presented our report, findings and supporting documentation - and in all but 2 or 3 of the cases, the SEC ACCEPTED THE FINDINGS OF THE INDEPENDENT INVESTIGATION and ruled based on such findings.

This resulted in fines, penalties, loss of license to practice as a CFO before the SEC, etc.

The SEC didn't do their own investigation, they relied on a qualified third party to do so.

The NCAA did the same with Freeh. Do you think they'd find anything more, or different?

__________________
Today is the first day of the next 86 years!