Penn State & Syracuse Scandals

[Bronn Stone]

Yes they are. That's the underlying act, and it bears no inherent relationship to sports. What about if a coach gets busted for soliciting prostitution, and the school covered it up? NCAA sanctions appropriate? I mean, think of it this way. Suppose you had a non-football related underlying offense that was less severe than what happened, so the possible "death penalty" isn't the punishment that would be imposed. What do you do, take away scholarships because the coach was involved in an securities fraud scheme? I think there needs to be a legitimate link between the crime and competition for the NCAA to get involved.

I do think Penn State should be punished. I don't see why it is the NCAA's job to do so for actions unrelated to competition.

It was Congress that was going to vote on impeachment, not the NCAA. Tressel and OSU got nailed not by the NCAA not because because of a "coverup", but because they were covering up violations of NCAA rules that affected competition. Suppose a coach was involved in mortgage fraud, and the school hushed it up. Punish the program? I think when you get to underlying offenses that have nothing to do with sports, the responsiiblity for punishment should lie with elected civil bodies, not the NCAA.

A coach involved in securities fraud is not an NCAA issue. A program covering up its coaches involvement in securities fraud because they thought that would mean fewer sponsorships from Corporate America, recruits would shun the school and ticket sales would fall definitely becomes an NCAA issue.

The NCAA regulates more than on-field issues. They control the BUSINESS of collegiate football. If Tennessee had a secret deal with a network for an extra cut of television revenues, that would be an NCAA issue. If Boston College was secretly underreporting ticket sales to avoid giving visiting teams their share of the gate, that would be an NCAA issue. Just as when Tressel hid the fact that some OSU players had sold some jerseys (which affects competition only indirectly, recruiting and revenues, just like in the PSU case), he was violating the business arrangement of "Amateur" College Football.

If the NCAA concludes that a coverup of felonious activity by Coach Sandusky was enacted by Penn State for the purposes of preserving ticket sales, recruiting and sponsorship arrangements, that clearly falls within the bailiwick of the NCAA and those bailiffs should punish them and punish them hard.

Coach Sandusky's actions were criminal and he should and will pay for them. PSU's actions may or may not have been criminal, but they certainly involve a coverup for the purpose of protecting the reputation of the football program. The Freeh Report makes this clear. The hammer is justified.

[Jaxom 1974]

For the NCAA it'll boil down to money or ethics. And for a governing body with a book of rules for it's ADs so thick you could start a home foundation with it, well, I hope they choose correctly.

You know, the time to make a choice between what is right and what is easy. PSU made the apparently easy choice.

Honestly, if the other schools in the conference are inconvenienced or end up losing some money, I am not that heartbroken. They, too, are contributors to a culture that values football, or sports prestige, over other items.

What would be nice to see happen here is the President of Illinois calling his counterpart at Ohio State who calls Minnesota who calls Nebraska who then contacts Iowa and so on through the rest of the conference and then as the heads of every other member of the Big Ten call up the NCAA and say, "We'll be okay if there's no money from Penn State for 5 years or so...kill the program..." because it might take movement from people higher up than the athletic departments and coaches to show they've got control over their own institutions to say they're okay with Penn State going away for at least 5 years...

Huh. I have my doubts about the federal gov. withholding financial aid to the flagship university of the state of Pennsylvania, but the existence of such a thing oughtta be damn troubling for them. That makes NCAA suspensions look like peanuts.

That this entire entanglement has connections to the current governor of Pennsylvania and so many others, it might take something like the with holding of federal financial aid to really send the message home. Can anyone really trust the state themselves to handle it?

I think the same penalty is appropriate. One year of no program. Free transfers for all upperclassmen. Sophomores and Freshmen can transfer under normal rules (sit out a year if they go out of conference, two if they go in). If Western Pennsylvania rallies behind PSU, the program will be back. If not, blame Joe, not the NCAA.

ETA: I can see the NCAA has a problem. By their rules, the "Death Penalty" can only be applied if a program has been formally warned in the past. Were I them, I would offer a draconian penalty and give them the option of taking a year of basic "Death" in its place.

5 years has to be the minimum. All student athletes should be able to transfer without losing the year of elligibility. 4 years and a red shirt year. That's what it should be.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The NCAA regulates more than on-field issues. They control the BUSINESS of collegiate football. If Tennessee had a secret deal with a network for an extra cut of television revenues, that would be an NCAA issue.

Because the NCAA is involved with distributing those revenues.

If Boston College was secretly underreporting ticket sales to avoid giving visiting teams their share of the gate, that would be an NCAA issue.

Because that's cheating another NCAA member.

Just as when Tressel hid the fact that some OSU players had sold some jerseys (which affects competition only indirectly, recruiting and revenues, just like in the PSU case), he was violating the business arrangement of "Amateur" College Football.

The underlying action of the OSU athletes was a violation of NCAA rules set up to ensure competition is fair.

If the NCAA concludes that a coverup of felonious activity by Coach Sandusky was enacted by Penn State for the purposes of preserving ticket sales, recruiting and sponsorship arrangements, that clearly falls within the bailiwick of the NCAA and those bailiffs should punish them and punish them hard.

That would be true of any illegal activity engaged that was covered up. Again, let's say they find out the coach hired a hooker. School finds out, covers it up. Should the school lose scholarships for that?

Coach Sandusky's actions were criminal and he should and will pay for them. PSU's actions may or may not have been criminal, but they certainly involve a coverup for the purpose of protecting the reputation of the football program. The Freeh Report makes this clear. The hammer is justified.

Just to be clear again, I do think punishment is warranted. I just don't get the NCAA aspect. So to focus on that, are there any examples of schools getting penalized because of conduct that did not involve football-related offenses, but instead were based solely on a desire to protect the school's reputation from the embarassment of non-football related misconduct? As I said, I don't know why a coach getting a hooker or cheating on his taxes wouldn't be grounds for NCAA penalties. And I'm not sure it's a good idea for the NCAA to be doing that.

[Bronn Stone]

Hiring a hooker isn't a felony. Skewing my comments (as explicitly mentions) is disingenious, and almost certainly intentionally so. You really aren't worth responding to some times.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Hiring a hooker isn't a felony. Skewing my comments (as explicitly mentions) is disingenious, and almost certainly intentionally so. You really aren't worth responding to some times.

Ah, fuckoff. I wasn't trying to skew your comments. I added tax cheating, or you could certainly add any other felony crime, and question whether the NCAA should get involved when schools are covering their asses from non-football embarassments committed by someone who happens to be affiliated with the problem.

[Kalbear]

Flow - in other situations as you describe where an organization covered up a crime to protect the football program the NCAA has punished that school.

So there's entirely precedent. In at least 6 other cases, including the recent tressel issue.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Flow - in other situations as you describe where an organization covered up a crime to protect the football program the NCAA has punished that school.

So there's entirely precedent. In at least 6 other cases, including the recent tressel issue.

I don't know what the other five are, and you may well be right. But the OSU thing doesn't fall into the same category. Here's how I'm looking at it:

The OSU players engaged in conduct that itself is directly punished by the NCAA, cover up or no. They accepted items of monetary value in exchange for their signatures. Thta's an undisputed violation of NCAA rules because it is indistinguishable from boosters slipping money to players. And players who do that generally will lose their eligibility for some period for time. So, Tressel and OSU covering that up likewise is punishable because they covered up conduct that itself is normally punished by the NCAA.

At Penn State, the underlying comment was a sexual assault, and the NCAA does not (at least as far as I'm aware) remove eligibility just because a person affiliated with the program commited a crime, no matter how heinous. Covering up an underlying action that is not directly punished by the NCAA is different than covering up something that is punished by the NCAA. Now, maybe the NCAA has punished coverups of such actions, and I've just missed it. But again, the Tressel thing falls into the first category, not the second.

So, an entire program may get get punished even if responsibility never went above the head coach. If the head coach engages in misconduct relating to players (recruiting violations, etc.) the program itself may be punished, even if there is no coverup.

Now, if Paterno had engaged in these sexual assault on his own, and nobody above him knew, would the program itself be sanctioned by the NCAA not for the coverup, but simply because a coach committed a criminal act? Are there any examples of the NCAA doing that, like for a case of non-sexual falony assault, hit and run driving, multiple DUI's, etc.? Has the NCAA punished a program because a coach has done that?

[Ormond]

What would be nice to see happen here is the President of Illinois calling his counterpart at Ohio State who calls Minnesota who calls Nebraska who then contacts Iowa and so on through the rest of the conference and then as the heads of every other member of the Big Ten call up the NCAA and say, "We'll be okay if there's no money from Penn State for 5 years or so...kill the program..." because it might take movement from people higher up than the athletic departments and coaches to show they've got control over their own institutions to say they're okay with Penn State going away for at least 5 years...

Because we are talking about large state universities, I doubt if this is possible. The Presidents of these institutions can't just decide to say it's "OK if there's no money from Penn State" without considering the financial and political implications in terms of their relationships with their own state governments. I can guarantee that if any penalty to Penn State would make any substantial hit in the revenues of the University of Nebraska, the governor, legislature, and many taxpayers in Nebraska would be up in arms, and would be after the head of any University of Nebraska President who agreed to it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Because we are talking about large state universities, I doubt if this is possible. The Presidents of these institutions can't just decide to say it's "OK if there's no money from Penn State" without considering the financial and political implications in terms of their relationships with their own state governments. I can guarantee that if any penalty to Penn State would make any substantial hit in the revenues of the University of Nebraska, the governor, legislature, and many taxpayers in Nebraska would be up in arms, and would be after the head of any University of Nebraska President who agreed to it.

I'm not sure other schools would take that big a hit, because on the plus side of the ledger, they wouldn't have to split revenues with Penn State.

Personally, I think it would be smart for the school (or the state) to shut it down for a year. The school has a lot of residual loyalty (it is more than just the people who fucked up here) and can rebuild a program. But if they don't do something to show a clean break, and convince the rest of the country that they understand the gravity of this, it will hound them for a very long time.

[Kalbear]

FLOW, the tressel issue had to do with him also not reporting a specific criminal activity of his players, apparently. I believe it was drug use that was not reported. It was fairly minor (and wasn't the primary reason they laid the smack down) but it was one of the things they cited in their report.

And this isn't my opinion on the matter; this is the NCAA's. This is their president stating as such in their letter to PSU. Whether or not you agree with me on this doesn't matter, as that is the NCAA's opinion, straight up.

Another example of the NCAA doing sanctions: The murder of a Baylor player and the subsequent coverup from the coach. It wasn't the sole reason that things were bad, but it was one of the reasons cited by the NCAA.

Also, the NCAA has many times removed eligibility of a player because of a crime. Usually this is the sort of thing that schools do beforehand, but the NCAA has that power.

Ultimately the thing that you're not getting is that the NCAA has the juristdiction to do virtually whatever it wants, and they have a clear cause to do so here; the failure to report a felony was done entirely to protect the football program. Not the university at large. Not one specific person. It was done willfully to protect the image of that football program. That JoePa has done this repeatedly in the past in various ways is just adding fuel to that fire, but it doesn't matter. This resulted in recruits going to PSU that almost certainly wouldn't have during that time, it resulted in revenue that the football program may not have been eligible for, and most importantly it resulted in the brand of NCAA football being significantly damaged. The NCAA has it very clearly established that they can and will police the ethical conduct of the player, coaches, officials and staff of their sports programs, regardless of other criminal malfeasance.

I think this is the other part you're missing: the NCAA relies heavily on institutions self-reporting and self-imposing penalties. In the past the NCAA has punished most severely the programs that covered up violations and ethical lapses in order to avoid punishment. That's where this falls in. PSU attested for years that nothing bad had happened when they were outright lying. The NCAA cannot stand being lied to, especially at the highest levels of an organization. That's where the dreaded "Lack of Institutional Control" falls here, and was mentioned something like 8 times in the letter to PSU. Lack of Institutional Control essentially means that organization willfully decided not to report.

[Trebla]

If you read the Freeh report, you will see that they repeatedly attack Penn State for the college's lack of support, understanding, and pure disregard for the Clery Act: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clery_Act

According to a Yahoo article, it's not the NCAA that Penn State has to fear. Because of the Clery Act the entire school could be hit with a "death penalty" by the Department of Education. http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr-saturday/department-education-could-bigger-threat-penn-state-ncaa-203019718--ncaaf.html

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, the tressel issue had to do with him also not reporting a specific criminal activity of his players, apparently. I believe it was drug use that was not reported. It was fairly minor (and wasn't the primary reason they laid the smack down) but it was one of the things they cited in their report.

You'll have to give a cite for that. I live here, it was all over the news, and the only thing I recall hearing about the justification for the sanctions is receipt of improper benefits. There may have been other things incidental to that, but they were not the reasons for the NCAA sanctions.

And this isn't my opinion on the matter; this is the NCAA's. This is their president stating as such in their letter to PSU. Whether or not you agree with me on this doesn't matter, as that is the NCAA's opinion, straight up.

Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but my concern is about precedent. Not because I care about fairness to PSU, but because what this may mean in terms of the NCAA acting as a general policeman for non-sports related misconduct in the future.

Another example of the NCAA doing sanctions: The murder of a Baylor player and the subsequent coverup from the coach. It wasn't the sole reason that things were bad, but it was one of the reasons cited by the NCAA.

Okay, this is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. I read that link, and it says nothing about the NCAA punishing Baylor because of a murder or coverup of a murder. The article talks about the murder, because it was the background event that exposed the underlying NCAA sports-related violations. The real issue was Baylor coaches, etc. funnelling money to players, and then lying about it. Here's what your link says:

Baylor continued to investigate the basketball program over the next seven months and released their final report on February 26, 2004. The full list of major program violations included:

• Bliss paying for tuition for two players, Dennehy and Herring^[4] and attempting to conceal it.
  
• Coaching staff providing meals, transportation, lodging and clothing to athletes.
  
• Coaching staff paying for tuition and fees for a recruit at another school.
  
• Bliss's encouragement of school boosters to donate to a foundation tied to a basketball team that included prospective Baylor recruits.
  
• Failure to report positive drug test results by athletes.
  
• Failure by the entire coaching staff to "exercise institutional control over the basketball program."
  

Other improprieties of a lesser nature were also discovered.

No mention at all of a murder, or the coverup of a murder, in the reasons listed for the sanctions. Murder is honestly a horrific crime, and you'd thing that would be specifically cited in a list of major violations. But it doesn't even get listed at all. Everything specific pertains to exactly the kind of stuff the NCAA has traditionally addressed, and the lack of institutional control pertains to those specific violations.

Also, the NCAA has many times removed eligibility of a player because of a crime. Usually this is the sort of thing that schools do beforehand, but the NCAA has that power.

I'm not trying to be a dick here, but do you have examples that don't involve violations of express NCAA rules? The one specific example you provided, murder and cover-up, wasn't supported by your cite.U

ltimately the thing that you're not getting is that the NCAA has the juristdiction to do virtually whatever it wants,

No, I agree with that to some extent. What I'm saying is that they will be exercizing that power in a way they haven't before. Clearly, they didn't previously sanction a program for a murder and coverup (though I don't think your link supports the claim that the coach covered up a murder either). So why pedophilia, and not murder?

This resulted in recruits going to PSU that almost certainly wouldn't have during that time, it resulted in revenue that the football program may not have been eligible for, and most importantly it resulted in the brand of NCAA football being significantly damaged.

A claim that a popular coach cheated on his wife could hurt recruiting too. Any major scandal at a college could hurt recruiting. But I haven't seen a single example of the NCAA imposing a punishment based solely on the theory that covering up an embarassing incident that might have adversely affected recruitment is sanctionable conduct. Not one. The underlying conduct always, at least as far as I can tell, violates and express NCAA rule.

I think this is the other part you're missing: the NCAA relies heavily on institutions self-reporting and self-imposing penalties. In the past the NCAA has punished most severely the programs that covered up violations and ethical lapses in order to avoid punishment. That's where this falls in. PSU attested for years that nothing bad had happened when they were outright lying.

And the underlying misconduct and lying is always related to a specific violation of NCAA rules.

I would bet a very large sum of money that the point I'm raising is being heavily debated within the NCAA organization itself. On the one hand, there is tremendous public pressure for them to do something, based on the public misunderstanding that the NCAA acts as a general morality police. And frankly, NCAA investigations and punishments of seemingly (to the public) minor things like a poor kid getting a few bucks to buy a pizza have created that false public perception about what the NCAA actually does. They've tried to expand their mandate, and that has created the expectation (demonstrated by this thread) that they will do something. And they (rightly) fear the huge backlash that they'll get if they do nothing. "So, you care more about a poor kid getting a tattoo than you do about children getting raped?" They don't want that.

On the other hand, I think they are very cognizant that they will be stepping into uncharted territory with this. All sorts of non-competition related incidents will now seem to be within the NCAA bailliwick, whether it is spousal abuse charges against a coach, or any number of offenses. I think the NCAA really doesn't want to open that Pandora's Box, but the image of unchallengeable omnipotence they have created is likely to force their hand.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

According to a Yahoo article, it's not the NCAA that Penn State has to fear. Because of the Clery Act the entire school could be hit with a "death penalty" by the Department of Education. http://sports.yahoo....718--ncaaf.html

That, I think, would be more legitimate. Although I'd still really like to see the people of Pennsylvania step up since it is a state school, and it is their children who were attacked.

[Eponine]

Ah, fuckoff. I wasn't trying to skew your comments. I added tax cheating, or you could certainly add any other felony crime, and question whether the NCAA should get involved when schools are covering their asses from non-football embarassments committed by someone who happens to be affiliated with the problem.

The head coach and AD allowed Sandusky to use aspects of the football program, including locker room access, tickets to games, and meeting players as part of his grooming act. Misuse of program resources to enable criminal activity is the NCAA's business. If Sandusky had no longer been a coach, but Paterno had found out what he was doing off school property, with games and players not involved, and Paterno had failed to report him, that shouldn't be the NCAA's business IMO. It would be a legal matter that had nothing to do with football. As soon as Sandusky was allowed to continue using team resources to commit his crimes, then it became NCAA business.

[lokisnow]

So, my view is that to the extent we are talking about actions that go beyond the criminal prosecution of individuals responsible, that should be an issue left up to the people of Pennsylvania, because Penn State is a state-supported school. The state government is perfectly capable of balancing the different issues here, and as the elected representatives of the residents of that state, it should be their decision. Personally, if I were in the state, I'd want the program shut down.

I pretty much agree with you, but good luck with that, if I recall correctly, Penn State has more alumni than just about any other university in the country. I don't think they'd let the state shut the school down. They will probably accept a few years without football though.

Maybe it's because I'm a lawyer, but my concern is about precedent. Not because I care about fairness to PSU, but because what this may mean in terms of the NCAA acting as a general policeman for non-sports related misconduct in the future.

The NCAA has made it very clear that they explicitly avoid precedent and don't consider any case to have any bearing on any other case, no matter the similarities or differences between cases. They don't want their hands tied when they want to punish a program that someone in the NCAA has a grudge against, nor do they want their hands tied when they want to avoid punishing a program/individual who has buddies in the NCAA.

fwiw, Joe Pa would have been the sort of person they would avoid punishing because he was such a great guy/good buddy with the folks in the NCAA.

[MsLibby]

The lead story at CNN right now is about a woman who was let go by Penn State a few years back for goiing head to head with Paterno over discipline of students in his program. He didn't seem to want to do it and would hide violent, off campus, behavior by his team from the media, etc. There is so much crap coming out about what he and the others did that the NCAA can't really ignore it.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I pretty much agree with you, but good luck with that, if I recall correctly, Penn State has more alumni than just about any other university in the country. I don't think they'd let the state shut the school down. They will probably accept a few years without football though.

Well, given that they've apparently decided to leave the Paterno statue up, I think it unlikely they see the program as deserving of sanction. I get their logic -- this isn't something that gave the program an unfair advantage, nor did it involve any misconduct by any current or former players, or conduct by anyone else relating to the product on the field. And there is truth to the argument that reducing Penn State as a school to this one episode is unfair to all the good people who built the school.

But I think this is just one of those things where something more needs to be done, because it still looks to most people (including me), that some people plainly don't get how big a deal this is. I do think that it should be left up to the people of Pennsylvania, but I also would expect to be greatly disappointed in how they'd address this.

The NCAA has made it very clear that they explicitly avoid precedent and don't consider any case to have any bearing on any other case, no matter the similarities or differences between cases. They don't want their hands tied when they want to punish a program that someone in the NCAA has a grudge against, nor do they want their hands tied when they want to avoid punishing a program/individual who has buddies in the NCAA.

I agree. But I also think they are susceptible to pressure by the public and Congress, and that regardless of their official position on precedent, there will still be an affect.

Joe Pa would have been the sort of person they would avoid punishing because he was such a great guy/good buddy with the folks in the NCAA.

JoePa was loved -- rightly -- because he did a lot of things that made it look like other things were more important than football. But with this incident, it looks like that really wasn't true. The real reason he did all those things was to protect/promote the program, not because they were inherently good in themselves. At least, that's how I see it. I live in eastern Ohio, and JoePa was very respected here as well because it's the same region. But that's all, deservedly, shot to shit for more people.

[Kalbear]

I get their logic -- this isn't something that gave the program an unfair advantage, nor did it involve any misconduct by any current or former players, or conduct by anyone else relating to the product on the field.

Except for two things: it did involve former coaches (and a school is culpable for a coaches' behavior; see Tressel or USC with Carroll). It did provide an unfair advantage; plenty of other schools had to deal with discipline issues with respect to recruiting and we know that players do shy away from pedophiles when they're involved with a program (this happened recently at I believe Michigan, where they let a known sex offender take pics with potential recruits).

Furthermore, Sandusky's 'legacy' as a great PSU alum, champion of the kids in need and ex-coach of PSU was a big selling point in recruiting. Covering his crimes allowed for them to continue to reap those benefits.

And if that weren't enough, hundreds of football players regularly volunteered at Second Mile for service credit.

There's tons to find if you're willing to look, FLOW.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Except for two things: it did involve former coaches (and a school is culpable for a coaches' behavior; see Tressel or USC with Carroll). It did provide an unfair advantage; plenty of other schools had to deal with discipline issues with respect to recruiting and we know that players do shy away from pedophiles when they're involved with a program (this happened recently at I believe Michigan, where they let a known sex offender take pics with potential recruits).

Look, we just don't agree here. You view covering up embarassment as a sanctionable conduct, and I don't. At least, not unless the underlying conduct that caused the embarassement is itself a violation of NCAA rules. I addressed Tressel -- you didn't respond except by pointing to the supposed cover up of a murder at Baylor, to which I responded by pointing out that was never mentioned as a violation in imposing sanctions.Now, you bring up Carroll. Okay, what was the underlying conduct that resulted in sanctions there, that was NOT itself a violation of NCAA rules?

Furthermore, Sandusky's 'legacy' as a great PSU alum, champion of the kids in need and ex-coach of PSU was a big selling point in recruiting. Covering his crimes allowed for them to continue to reap those benefits. And if that weren't enough, hundreds of football players regularly volunteered at Second Mile for service credit. There's tons to find if you're willing to look, FLOW.

You can relate a great many things -- it all depends on the level of attenuation. I see a distinction between covering up underlying conduct that itself is an express violation of NCAA rules, and covering up conduct that is not an express violation of NCAA rules. You don't. Fine -- we have our disagreement.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

FLOW,

Kal's right. Paterno's reputation and the reputation of Penn State for running a clean program would hqve been seriously damaged if Sandusky's conduct was made public. That's why the cover up matters and why the NCAA should smake the crap out of Penn State's football program.