Penn State & Syracuse Scandals

[Kalbear]

Sorry, FLOW - I didn't have time to go back to your prior post. I'll find the relevant facts and bring them up. If your goal is to find another example of a coverup that was covering up a non-football related issue that ended up getting sanctions, they exist; I'll find those for you too.

Here's one small example: Jerramy Stevens of UW. He was convicted of assault and accused of rape. The school self-imposed restrictions on him instead of NCAA doing it, but the NCAA was going to if UW hadn't stepped in.

[UNIT81]

If Western Pennsylvania rallies behind PSU, the program will be back. If not, blame Joe, not the NCAA.

PSU has no special connection to Western Pa. It's up in the middle of the state. Plus there's probably more PSU hate around here from the days of the Pitt rivalry than in other parts of Pa. But there are still a lot of PSU alums here.

And if the feds were to hand out the sanctions mentioned here before November then I would think the President doesn't win the state. Not saying I agree with that reaction but I feel pretty sure that would be the result.

[Jaxom 1974]

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.

Oh it's pie in the sky thinking, but that doesn't mean it wouldn't be beyond significant if the presidents of the other Big Ten Universities were to make the gesture...

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....718--ncaaf.html

This would be a-okay in my book.

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.

Is no one talking about the possible implications of Sandusky violating the Mann Act as well?

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?

Weren't they covering up illegal acts though? Not simply embarassment?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

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.

What is he "right" about? Whether or not Penn State should be sanctioned by the NCAA because covered up Sandusky's sexual assaults is a matter of opinion. If you think that opinion is correct, fine.

On the other hand, I'm addressing whether the NCAA has previously sanctioned a college program for covering up embarassing facts, when those underlying facts themselves did not involve a direct violation of NCAA rules. That is a question of fact, not opinion. Sandusky molesting young boys did not, under any sense or theory, give Penn State some competitive advantage in terms attracting or keeping recruits.

OSU players accepted gratuities -- a clear violation of NCAA rules that Tressel covered up.

Reggie Bush and others accepted gratuities -- a clear violation of NCAA rules that Carroll covered up

Sandusky molesting young boys -- not a clear violation of NCAA rules that Paterno covered up.

In the past "institutional control" has essentially been an aggravating factor justifying harsher penalties for underlying NCAA violations. To the best I can figure out, this would be the first time that "lack of institutional control" would be considered an independent basis for punishment where the underlying activity was not itself a violation of NCAA rules.

Let's say a coach gets caught in a DUI, with a couple of Al Qaeda hookers in his car, and the President of the University calls in favors with the cops to get it dropped and hushed up. Clearly embarassing, and clearly something that might induce some parents not to send their kids to that school. Is that any of the NCAA's business for which the school should be punished? Now, you and Kalbear may say "yes", and that's fine. My point is that I think this is doing something that has not yet been done before -- punishing coverups of activities that are not NCAA violations.

Do you agree or disagree with that? And if you disagee, could you point me to the violation that qualifies?

Okay, wondering if Im crazy, I went and looked for an article that discusses this. And whaddya know, FLOW isn't crazy for making note of this distinction:

"Penn State's response to the letter will inform our next steps, including whether or not to take action," wrote Bob Williams, the NCAA's vice president of communications. Michael McCann, director of the Sports Law Institute at Vermont Law School, said the Freeh Report, which details an in-depth investigation led by former FBI chief Louis Freeh, creates a compelling case for the NCAA to sanction Penn State for "lack of institutional control."

Other experts say that if the NCAA's enforcement staff were to become heavily involved in what has largely been a criminal investigation, it could set a new and troubling precedent for how the NCAA polices schools.

"The NCAA works to manage collegiate competition," said Jo Potuto, a former NCAA Division I Committee on Infractions chairwoman who is a professor of constitutional law at the University of Nebraska College of Law. "It's not an association in which the national office is supposed to be a hall monitor for everything that occurs on a campus."

Potuto said that because the Penn State scandal occurred within the football program and on its premises, it is connected to athletics, although the underlying violations are not. In past situations intertwining athletics and criminal activity, the NCAA became involved only when NCAA rules were violated, Potuto said. The 2003 murder of Baylor basketball player Patrick Dennehy by a teammate is one example.

"When the NCAA enforcement process was triggered there, it wasn't because that player was killed by another player on the team," Potuto said. "It was because the coach paid players under the table."

The NCAA responded with sanctions that crippled Baylor's men's basketball program for several years. Michael Buckner, a Florida lawyer who has represented schools in NCAA infractions cases, said Penn State would become an NCAA rules-violation case only if NCAA President Mark Emmert "wants to stretch the rules to where they've never been stretched before."

http://articles.lati...e-ncaa-20120713

THAT is my point. Right there. You can certainly argue that it should be stretched to that point, and that the NCAA may have the legal right to stretch them that way. But so far, I haven't seen anything disputing my point that this would be unprecedented. And Scot, here's really what my point is:

"It's really opening a door to a lot more authority in areas of responsibility for the NCAA, and I'm not sure that's where universities want to go or should go." She added: "There's a famous quote from law that 'Hard cases make bad law.' "This strikes me to be one where that's what's going on."

http://www.chicagotr...0,3569332.story

Oh, shit, here's another one making that same point.

The crimes committed by Sandusky and the cover-up seemingly perpetrated by Paterno, former president Graham Spanier, former vice president Gary Schultz and current athletic director -- albeit on administrative leave -- Tim Curley is so far beyond the purview of the NCAA bylaws that it's laughable. The NCAA -- and by extension, its bylaws -- exist to ensure, in essence, fair play among schools and that the ideals of amateur sports are upheld. There is nothing about harboring and protecting child rapists. The NCAA could not possibly have foreseen that there would ever be a situation like this, so they didn't write any bylaws to deal with it -- and yet here we are.

http://www.nesn.com/...-of-crimes.html

[MinDonner]

Question - I'm not massively familiar with the chronology here, but didn't the coverups allow the abuse to continue for much longer than it otherwise would have? It wasn't just covering up something that had happened, it also let it continue?

Also, is anyone else sickened by the continual comparison of years of child-rape to the arguably victim-free crime of hiring a prostitute once? If we're gonna be comparing "non-NCAA-regulated offences" then at least go with one that causes some degree of harm. You know, for the sake of a fair argument, rather than some lawyerly technicalities?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Here's one small example: Jerramy Stevens of UW. He was convicted of assault and accused of rape. The school self-imposed restrictions on him instead of NCAA doing it, but the NCAA was going to if UW hadn't stepped in.

Okay, read the story. Not a drop about even potential NCAA sanctions in there at all. Nothing. I'm willing to read your articles, Kalbear, but it is kind of inconsiderate to be citing specifically to certain articles for propositions that clearly appear nowhere in them.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Question - I'm not massively familiar with the chronology here, but didn't the coverups allow the abuse to continue for much longer than it otherwise would have? It wasn't just covering up something that had happened, it also let it continue?

Also, is anyone else sickened by the continual comparison of years of child-rape to the arguably victim-free crime of hiring a prostitute once? If we're gonna be comparing "non-NCAA-regulated offences" then at least go with one that causes some degree of harm. You know, for the sake of a fair argument, rather than some lawyerly technicalities?

Oh for the love of God, I made up something embarassing, because embarrasing is the benefit argument being used. If you've read the rest of the thread, though, the example of a murder at Baylor going completely uncited by the NCAA as a violation should do the trick.

[Sci-2]

yeah, i'm not sure i agree with FLOW's position, but I didn't think he was trying to trivialize the victimization of kids.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Weren't they covering up illegal acts though? Not simply embarassment?

The NCAA historically punishes conduct that gives one school an unfair advantage of another, even if the underlying advantage was not illegal. That has always been interpreted to mean engaging in specific improper activities for the purposes of attracting students to the school. However, they're making a new argument. They are arguing that it is unfair competition for a school to cover-up something that is sufficiently embarassing that it might discourage players from attending the school. That's a unique standard, and not dependent on whether or not the underlying conduct is illegal. But I gave the example of the drunk coach driving, adding in a couple of AQ hookers to meet the standard. Horribly embarassing, and illegal. Shit, there have been a lot of coaches and players busted for doing illegal things that have been covered up by the school. I can't recall a single prior incident of such cover-ups resulting in NCAA sanctions based on this "embarassment" theory. The theory has always been "your players/coaches were breaking NCAA rules, and you concealed that from the NCAA."

[Kalbear]

Well, you can read the NCAA's letter to Penn State; it's pretty clear that they think they have the jurisdiction.

And sorry about the Stevens thing; it was big in the news at the time and I grabbed the first long-duration article I could find. I'll try and find the specific article in a bit.

Here's one thing that might work:

Oklahoma — Seven Major Infractions: Barry Switzer inherited a program on probation — it forfeited nine games from the 1972 season because of violations that resulted from the alteration of players’ transcripts — and left it on probation in 1988. The Sooners had garnered the reputation of being an outlaw program in the 1980s. During one rough patch, a shooting and rape occurred in an athletic dorm, a player attempted to sell drugs to undercover agent, and a player robbed Switzer’s home. The latter player probably didn’t receive person checks from Switzer, scalped game tickets, free airline tickets, or a boatload of money from a bidding war during his recruitment. All of that happened, and it resulted in a two-year bowl ban, a one-year live television ban and recruiting restrictions. More recently, Oklahoma’s basketball program was penalized when former basketball coach Kelvin Sampson, the same guy who later crippled the Indiana basketball program due to unethical recruiting practices, made 550 illegal calls to 17 different recruits.

[Jaxom 1974]

FLOW, I don't know what area of law you're in, but would defending Penn State against NCAA sanctions be a case you'd take?

And for the record: Despite that I do not agree with your postion, I don't think you've ever trivialized what actaully happened. Hope I haven't come across that way.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Well, you can read the NCAA's letter to Penn State; it's pretty clear that they think they have the jurisdiction.

And sorry about the Stevens thing; it was big in the news at the time and I grabbed the first long-duration article I could find. I'll try and find the specific article in a bit.

Here's one thing that might work:

Just sayin' -- doesn't say the NCAA punished them for that. The article is just chronicalling all the fucked up stuff that was going on there in general.

Did you read any of those links I posted above where lawyers not affiliated with PSU all seemed to agree that this would be the NCAA going where it has never gone before?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

FLOW, I don't know what area of law you're in, but would defending Penn State against NCAA sanctions be a case you'd take?

Nope. Don't know enough about it. Plus, there is a difference between arguing that the NCAA would be doing something it's never done before, and the NCAA doing something that it technically doesn't have the power to do. I think it probably does have the legal power to do that. The question is whether that's a Pandora's box that should be opened. There are enough problems with the NCAA being a bully that I'm not sure having it delve into a whole new realm is a smart.

And for the record: Despite that I do not agree with your postion, I don't think you've ever trivialized what actaully happened. Hope I haven't come across that way.

Thanks. And I'm not. Personally, I think criminal actions involving state schools are properly left to the legal system of that state. I really hate that idea here, because it doesn't look like Pennsyvlania is going to treat this with the severity I (and many others) think it should. But i have a tough time getting my head around the justification for people in other states to dictate the punishment from crimes like this in Pennsylvania. The truth is that there is lots and lots and lots of stuff like this that happens in other states, and our laws leave it for each state to handle. Not quite sure the principled reason why this should be different.

That being said, I think a slightly different way to perhaps get to the same result is that if member schools agreed that they simply do not want to play Penn State because of this (and I think it will be a damn circus this year), schools should be given the right to remove Penn State from their schedule for this year if they choose, the Big Ten should have the right to reduce revenue-sharing accordingly, and players should be given the option to transfer. Not exactly a ban, but also, other schools would not be forced to play Penn State just because the schedules were made before this this all became public knowledge.

[Kalbear]

I did read that stuff, FLOW. The thing is that apparently they're actually wrong. What the NCAA hasn't done is gone in where there was onlycriminal activity and no NCAA violations, but the NCAA has punished when there were both criminal and noncriminal violations.

It ultimately likely doesn't matter; what the AD of UW thinks (he worked with Emmert before) is that the NCAA may simply file sanctions, and dare PSU to sue them back if they think they've overstepped their bounds. That's certainly what the letter they filed 8 months ago implies.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I did read that stuff, FLOW. The thing is that apparently they're actually wrong. What the NCAA hasn't done is gone in where there was onlycriminal activity and no NCAA violations, but the NCAA has punished when there were both criminal and noncriminal violations.

I don't think they've ever cited for criminal conduct that was not an NCAA violation, though, even though conduct that is a violation may also be a criminal offense (bribery to throw a game, for example). The crimes may appear in the narrative of the whole event, but they are not the legal basis for the impostiion of sanctions. The Baylor murder case makes that abundantly clear.. And honestly, none of the data you've provided shows that it has done that, and those articles, form experts in the field, all seem to agree with me..

It ultimately likely doesn't matter; what the AD of UW thinks (he worked with Emmert before) is that the NCAA may simply file sanctions, and dare PSU to sue them back if they think they've overstepped their bounds. That's certainly what the letter they filed 8 months ago implies.

I think you are correct here. I don't know the underlying law well enough to know whether the NCAA has the legal authority, though.

[Greywolf2375]

Emmert isn't ruling out the death penalty for PSU's inaction:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19600940/video-ncaa-president-mark-emmert-will-not-rule-out-death-penalty-for-penn-state

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Emmert isn't ruling out the death penalty for PSU's inaction:

http://www.cbssports...-for-penn-state

I think it should be recognized that PSU is likely to get hit with a lot of money in terms of lawsuits. Likely, well north of $100M total when you consider the argument for punitive damages. They may also find student financial aid suspended under the Clery Act by the feds, which would severely damage enrollment. This just seems more to me than being about a football program, although being an OSU fan, I don't really have a stake in it one way of the other.

[Antonius Pius]

Emmert isn't ruling out the death penalty for PSU's inaction:

http://www.cbssports...-for-penn-state

I'm not really in the know, but it seems a bit like grandstanding; making threats and then deciding later on to go with a lower punishment.

FWIW, I think the death penalty is appropriate. You do not want something like this ever again, and if you need to make a harsh example, I'm all for it. It's college sports. It's emotional, it's big business, but it's just fucking sports.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm not really in the know, but it seems a bit like grandstanding; making threats and then deciding later on to go with a lower punishment.

I think they don't know what to do. Against what standard do you evaluate it? "14 sexual assaults on children -- that'll cost 15 scholarships in year one, and 10 in year two. Oh, and no bowls for two years. Maybe three."

FWIW, I think the death penalty is appropriate. You do not want something like this ever again, and if you need to make a harsh example, I'm all for it. It's college sports. It's emotional, it's big business, but it's just fucking sports.

I could see them doing the death penalty, or I could see them doing nothing on the grounds that it is more appropriate for the legal system to address this. Either is defensible, but I don't know that it is defensible to do anything in the middle.

[Antonius Pius]

I think they should do both; legal system should take care of those in power that looked the other way; that's what criminal law is for. But I also think the NCAA should put down a big fat case of never again, and it's clear that when money and prestige is concerned, people will almost always look the other way in favour of the golden goose. A heavy example is needed to make clear that what happened at the higher levels of PSU is not OK. So yeah, harsh punishment by NCAA as a second phase.

I can sorta understand that the NCAA is in a predicament; no matter what they do, they end up offending/angering one side. But then again, they're there to toe a line, so let them buck up.