Does NCAA have the right to penalize Penn St?

[AlaskaSU]

PSU was NOT punished for breaking any criminal laws. PSU was punished for a massive cover up to protect the football program which allowed heinous criminal behavior to continue. Honestly, what if your only son was raped by JS after PSU could have done something to put an end to it but chose not to because the football program was more important than your son growing up to have a normal life? Think about that for awhile. All I know, is my son's tort settlement wouldn't be enough. I'd want a strong deterrent set for making sure schools don't engage in this kind of behavior in the future to protect their sports programs. If there is no NCAA punishment, the message from the NCAA is, "Hey, it's ok to cover up anything to protect your school's sports programs. To hell with the people casualties that occur. We have a big business to run here." Really? The NCAA absolutely had to act.

FYI, any sentence starting with "You people", isn't going to be perceived well.

Would you feel better if I said that the people that support judicial activism and vote liberal are probably the same ones that think the ncaa has authority when a specific ncaa rule is not violated? As I said, I do not know the ncaa rule book but all I've heard so far is reference to a general statement stating that integrity matters, which could mean anything. How can such a statement be enforceable. How do you know that your son's tort settlement would not be greater than the ncaa's? Each victim can make his own claim. Regardless, ends do not justify the means which is exactly my point. Your point is that ncaa action makes you feel good. Failure to report is a violation of Penn State law.

 

[bevosu]

I think you should take your liberal/conservative, judicial activism, original intent, stuff to the off topic board.

 

[rrlbees]

1) Exactly what section of the rule book other than that the ncaa says that integrity matters?
2) If there would have been no cover up there would have been no penalties. Was it a coverup of ncaa violations or of a legal violation? It was a legal violation.
3) There is no way of knowing whether the perps replacement would have been an improvement. There are experienced professionals available.

I want to see a specific citation of a rule violation. Violation of a general preamble statement does not cut it for me.

You can search for it yourself on this site. It was posted a couple of times. The exact letter the NCAA sent to PedSt which articulated the exact sections and paragraph numbers. It wasn't some preamble.

As to #2, they gained an advantage in every year after the first unreported molestation took place.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[br801]

The fans of the program that are innocent and grew up on this program get punished and for 4 years and then some more to rebuild, meanwhile the parents who left their children with sandusky get off free.

The issue wasn't football it was more off the field, but the bad actions continued by the programs power and sadly that hurts the program and caused many more victims.

Punishing the many for the few. Whether you think its fair or not thats what it is.

I'm afraid to ask where you're going with this. You really should stick to analyzing JB's offense.

 

[NKR1978]

Would you feel better if I said that the people that support judicial activism and vote liberal are probably the same ones that think the ncaa has authority when a specific ncaa rule is not violated? As I said, I do not know the ncaa rule book but all I've heard so far is reference to a general statement stating that integrity matters, which could mean anything. How can such a statement be enforceable. How do you know that your son's tort settlement would not be greater than the ncaa's? Each victim can make his own claim. Regardless, ends do not justify the means which is exactly my point. Your point is that ncaa action makes you feel good. Failure to report is a violation of Penn State law.

All I'm getting out of this is that you think that people who "vote D" will use established rules to punish an institution that sat back and did nothing for decades while children were being raped. Alternatively, people who "vote R" would rather not punish said institution because there are no rules that specifically deal with child rape.

Interesting that the "do nothing" approach was also the course of action favored by Joe Paterno, a very conservative republican who did nothing for years while kids were being raped in his football facilities. So all I could gather from your logic, and its not my logic because I try not to make broad political connections to a wholly unpolitical issue, is that people who "vote R" are inclined to do nothing while children are being raped.

Of course that can't be true because there are millions of conservatives in this country who are against child rape and don't have any issue with the NCAA penalties.

Sent from my ADR6400L using Tapatalk 2

 

[Zelda Zonk]

The problem was they protected the program instead of children. The point must be made that we will kill the golden calf if you allow crimes to be committed to protect it. Assessing penalties against only the individuals allows the program to remain relatively unscathed and others might think the punishment is worth the crime.

One could argue, as well, that they protected the University. The sports program's administration is a part of the university, so why would sanctions and penalties not extend further than just the athletic department? I'm not advocating that — just extending the logical argument.

My 'other' issue with the blanket ruling is that a lot of players worked very hard for those vacated wins. Innocent players. And, those victories are now statistically invalidated. Nothing has been said, yet, about invalidating individual player stats/accomplishments, but effectively 'erasing' 112 wins is a kick in the nads to a great many student athletes who put in a lot of physical work and prep over the course of many years. It's one thing to remove those credits from Paterno's record, and another matter to take them away from the players who earned them in good faith.

 

[MonsterGame]

Would you feel better if I said that the people that support judicial activism and vote liberal are probably the same ones that think the ncaa has authority when a specific ncaa rule is not violated? As I said, I do not know the ncaa rule book but all I've heard so far is reference to a general statement stating that integrity matters, which could mean anything. How can such a statement be enforceable. How do you know that your son's tort settlement would not be greater than the ncaa's? Each victim can make his own claim. Regardless, ends do not justify the means which is exactly my point. Your point is that ncaa action makes you feel good. Failure to report is a violation of Penn State law.

My point is what I underlined and nothing else. Nothing about any of the PSU situation makes me feel good. Nothing. Not the crimes, not the cover up, not the punishments. Nothing. Wish none of it ever happened.

I'd add, when someone attempt's to put words in my mouth that I never said or intended and have nothing to do with the issue at hand. That also makes me want to vomit.

 

[MonsterGame]

One could argue, as well, that they protected the University. The sports program's administration is a part of the university, so why would sanctions and penalties not extend further than just the athletic department? I'm not advocating that — just extending the logical argument.

My 'other' issue with the blanket ruling is that a lot of players worked very hard for those vacated wins. Innocent players. And, those victories are now statistically invalidated. Nothing has been said, yet, about invalidating individual player stats/accomplishments, but effectively 'erasing' 112 wins is a kick in the nads to a great many student athletes who put in a lot of physical work and prep over the course of many years. It's one thing to remove those credits from Paterno's record, and another matter to take them away from the players who earned them in good faith.

The NCAA will level sanctions when a school covers up henious crimes to protect it's sport programs allowing the henious crimes to continue.

Take the above statement as a whole, not in part. Taking it in part is wrong. Let's look at some examples:

1) Sexual abuse at an NCAA school occurs. School finds out about it. Reports it and/or investigates on it immediately depending on how much evidence there is about the sexual abuse. (He said/ he said initial independent investigate, if any possible validity, then report to police findings. Direct supporting evidence of the crime such as third party eye witness, report it to the police.) School in the clear. No NCAA sanctions.

2) Sexual abuse at an NCAA school occurs. School finds out about. Decides to bury it in order to protect the sports program(s) from bad publicity. Sexual abuse occurs again and again and again before it comes to light. NCAA levels heavy sanctions on the school.


Wonder if some of those players saw or heard kids being raped in the locker room, did nothing at the time out of fear/uncertainty, and will never come forward because they know they would be vilified and/or prosecuted for it. Maybe they just noticed something didn't pass the smell test about these kids being around at the times they were around with JS but did nothing. I'm certain that most past PSU football players would be agast at this thought, doesn't mean it isn't true in some cases.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

A good analogy is interpretation of the Constitution. Wacked out liberals say that anything is justified due to the preamble of the Constitution.

You have a really hard time staying away from this stuff.

 

[AlaskaSU]

You have a really hard time staying away from this stuff.

No conservative has ever tried to justify legislative or executive activity by citing the preamble to the Constitution. The analogy is between those that cite the preamble of the Constitution and the ncaa citing a general reference to integrity.

 

[orange79]

Please take this bullshit to the OT board.

 

[AlaskaSU]

You can search for it yourself on this site. It was posted a couple of times. The exact letter the NCAA sent to PedSt which articulated the exact sections and paragraph numbers. It wasn't some preamble.

As to #2, they gained an advantage in every year after the first unreported molestation took place.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I will do some investigation today to see if the ncaa citations appear legitimate. In a former life I have been tasked with drafting comprehensive statewide regulations. Every paragraph needs a citation to its legislative authority. The various advocates in the executive department were invariably oblivious to the chain of authority as they vigorously and predictably promoted regs to favor their passion. I have not looked into the specifics of the ncaa citations but I have heard a respected legal commentator that was also very skeptical of the ncaa authority in this matter.

For some reason my computer screen does not show the site that you want me to reference. "You can search for it yourself on this site" No problem, I'll track it down. Thank you.

 

[orangefan13]

I'm afraid to ask where you're going with this. You really should stick to analyzing JB's offense.

The parents left their children with some total stranger because he was some big named PSU guy full of football power.
No matter how big he is, thats not a good decision.

Nowsome of these parents are going to step forward and sue the university (and they will), while they haven't even been involved in this case for the last 15 years keeping quiet. That hurt the university even more, and their silence led to more sandusky attacks and victims.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

No conservative has ever tried to justify legislative or executive activity by citing the preamble to the Constitution. The analogy is between those that cite the preamble of the Constitution and the ncaa citing a general reference to integrity.

That's not really what I was commenting on, but ok.

 

[br801]

The parents left their children with some total stranger because he was some big named PSU guy full of football power.
No matter how big he is, thats not a good decision.

Nowsome of these parents are going to step forward and sue the university (and they will), while they haven't even been involved in this case for the last 15 years keeping quiet. That hurt the university even more, and their silence led to more sandusky attacks and victims.

How can someone be a "big named PSU guy" and a "total stranger" at the same time? At worst, Sandusky was a "relative stranger" to his victims and their parents. But short of keeping your children locked in a basement until they are 18, it's difficult to raise them without entrusting them to the supervision of "relative strangers" as they grow up. To suggest that the parents of Sandusky's victims were somehow responsible for what happened to their children is outrageous. And you're taking quite a leap in assuming that the parents of the children victimized had full knowledge of what transpired and were making a conscious decision to "keep quiet" until now.