should the NCAA sanction penn state???.

[billsin01]

Tough to really argue that point... they keep getting top quality recruits and most have said here that it'd have had a short-term minimal effect from the public opinion standpoint..

I feel like some here think I am defending Sandusky... let me be clear.. he's a worthless piece of and I hope he lives for the next 30 years in prison in solitary confinement. To kill this ******* and rid him of his demons would be unfair to the victims...

That said.. I don't see how the athletics department should be the focus of any sanctions... this was the admins at the University. Lack of institutional control is definitely apparent, however, it's not related to athletics.. this did not benefit athletics in the least.

I don't think you're defending sandusky and I get that there is no precedent for action here. If people want to make the legal argument counter to mine I'm good with it and it's certainly not something I take personally. I also may feel more strongly than most since I have three young sons.

My point is more that I think sometimes people are over-complicating this: this stuff happened in the facilities (whether he was retired or not, he clearly had plenty of access to the team). It involved the head coach, an assistant and the AD. So how is that not athletics-related? I know players didn't benefit per se, but it's clearly related to athletics in a pretty intimate fashion, IMO.

 

[javadoc]

To me the NCAA and the rule book deals with athletics. I don’t know this for a fact so I won’t argue it.

But it makes no sense to me that the NCAA could sanction a school for non-athletic transgressions.

While this happened in the athletic department I don't believe the NCAA has any grounds to sanction Penn State.

The rulebook does deal primarily with regulations of athletics - participation, the flow of all money through athletics, amateur status, the various annual calendars, etc.

The issue seems pretty simple to me, and I don't know why some continue to disagree. The clauses dealing with moral conduct etc. are plain and right there in print, as I mentioned above. This is as close to a "black letter law" situation that I can imagine, whereby those particular by-laws contain teeth beyond the scope of criminal or civil proceedings against the individuals involved.

If we're not going to enforce them in this case, then there is no point in retaining them. Let the NCAA be known as a body whose opprobrium falls on schools that misuse money, but not one that uses its flagship sports program as a haven for a child rapist.

The by-laws are there. They apply. Enforce them.

 

[billsin01]

The rulebook does deal primarily with regulations of athletics - participation, the flow of all money through athletics, amateur status, the various annual calendars, etc.

The issue seems pretty simple to me, and I don't know why some continue to disagree. The clauses dealing with moral conduct etc. are plain and right there in print, as I mentioned above. This is as close to a "black letter law" situation that I can imagine, whereby those particular by-laws contain teeth beyond the scope of criminal or civil proceedings against the individuals involved.

If we're not going to enforce them in this case, then there is no point in retaining them. Let the NCAA be known as a body whose opprobrium falls on schools that misuse money, but not one that uses its flagship sports program as a haven for a child rapist.

The by-laws are there. They apply. Enforce them.

Well said. I also feel like we're talking about priorities. In what world is a governing body jumping all over the case of a kid selling apparel he stole from a university on e-bay but telling a program that turned a blind eye to child rape, "well, we don't approve but it's not really our concern."

I have no idea if there will be sanctions but suggesting it's not related to athletics or covered under by-laws is not dissimilar to saying, "well, we shouldn't really be interceding in instances of genocide b/c it has nothing to do with the US." It may be true, but it's hardly an adequate response.

 

[PhatOrange]

Here's my problem with this: if the NCAA follows this logic it not only suggests to programs that they aren't going to be punished for not fulfilling their moral obligations but that they are in fact encouraging them to keep quiet. 45 counts of child rape later the NCAA is saying, "Yup, business as usual at Penn State!" Insane.

And, as I mentioned before, isn't it the NCAA who will tell us about character development of young men and women? Isn't that their basic mission (supposedly)? Wouldn't Penn State's actions run directly counter to that stated mission?

Moral obligations etc, none of that matters. If Penn State is sanctioned for the molestation then the NCAA can sanction every school for every athletic criminal transgression that occurs.

 

[PhatOrange]

The clauses dealing with moral conduct etc. are plain and right there in print, as I mentioned above.

What are those clauses?

 

[javadoc]

What are those clauses?

Took forever for the 2011-12 rulebook to download. Here are the two that I believe could sink them.

Constitution, Article 6, Institutional Control

6.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLE

6.01.1 Institutional Control. The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.

6.1 INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

6.1.1 President or Chancellor. A member institution’s president or chancellor has ultimate responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics program and the actions of any board in control of that program. (Revised: 3/8/06)

Bylaw, Article 19, Enforcement

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.


It would seem that several people in the AD and in the University's Administration, including the single person who is designated as the ultimate authority for Institutional Control, are in flagrant violation. 19.01.2 may read like the "good behavior" clause for Supreme Court service, but like the Medicaid portion of the recent PPACA ruling, this is a time when the NCAA has to put its foot down and say, "We may not have a bright line standard for determining when a violation of 19.01.2 has occurred, but by God this one certainly qualifies."

 

[Moontan]

Took forever for the 2011-12 rulebook to download. Here are the two that I believe could sink them.

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people.

Someone who still had an office there, was allowed full access to the facilities and (up to the time he was arrested) was invited into the president's box for games would certainly fall into the "associated with" category.

 

[javadoc]

Someone who still had an office there, was allowed full access to the facilities and (up to the time he was arrested) was invited into the president's box for games would certainly fall into the "associated with" category.

I agree. From a "legal" perspective I think the thing that nails them is that the President participated in the cover-up. There is another section of the Bylaws dealing with NCAA violations that states explicitly that former staff members are covered by the regulation in some cases. It might not apply here to Sandusky, but I think it is beside the point. Spanier should be in the crosshairs.

 

[Jake]

It could be easily argued that The motive for the cover up was to save the "Football program" from negative publicity, that in turn would hurt recruiting and cost the university millions of dollars. Therefore, the coverup provides a competitive advantage for PSU recruiters. That's the ncaa's foot in the door.

After the coverup commences, at that point the issue becomes an institutional issue.

 

[tipphill]

So you want to punish the players and the new coaching staff who had nothing to do with this for something that an ex-coach did seven years ago. It is incredibly unfair to the student athletes who are in the program now. Seems to me that the civil courts will take care of making the administration pay for not reporting suspected abuse.

players would get an option to transfer, and if your a senior it would'nt matter anyway--any consequences would occur after you graduate. new coaches took the job with a roll of the dice KNOWING there could be consequences-----a bigger concern would be the new commits what bill of goods is being sold to them and their families. if i were a parent,psu is hands off due to the impending sanctions

 

[tipphill]

Andy Staples has a good take on the situation.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/20...te-jerry-sandusky-ncaa/index.html?eref=sircrc

i think not---says there is rule for violating a state staute---well what about the non-reporting of SUSPECTED child molestation as required

 

[omniorange]

It could be easily argued that The motive for the cover up was to save the "Football program" from negative publicity, that in turn would hurt recruiting and cost the university millions of dollars. Therefore, the coverup provides a competitive advantage for PSU recruiters. That's the ncaa's foot in the door.

After the coverup commences, at that point the issue becomes an institutional issue.

Exactly. And the emails seem to indicate that the football coach (the tail) influenced how the AD and President responded (was wagging the "dog") to the reported incident. Isn't that the very definition of lack of institutional control?

It won't be the death penalty, but I would imagine if this plays out as some believe, there will be major sanctions.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[tipphill]

if the ncaa passes on this they lose total credibility and controls with the member schools as well as the public and sporting world.they will get no respect and may as well strike the tent.this is the most heinous of all acts,and they must act harshly to make a statement. if they act it will be the death penalty.

 

[rrlbees]

Took forever for the 2011-12 rulebook to download. Here are the two that I believe could sink them.

Constitution, Article 6, Institutional Control

6.01 GENERAL PRINCIPLE

6.01.1 Institutional Control. The control and responsibility for the conduct of intercollegiate athletics shall be exercised by the institution itself and by the conference(s), if any, of which it is a member. Administrative control or faculty control, or a combination of the two, shall constitute institutional control.

6.1 INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE

6.1.1 President or Chancellor. A member institution’s president or chancellor has ultimate responsibility and final authority for the conduct of the intercollegiate athletics program and the actions of any board in control of that program. (Revised: 3/8/06)

Bylaw, Article 19, Enforcement

19.01.2 Exemplary Conduct. Individuals employed by or associated with member institutions for the administration, the conduct or the coaching of intercollegiate athletics are, in the final analysis, teachers of young people. Their responsibility is an affirmative one, and they must do more than avoid improper conduct or questionable acts. Their own moral values must be so certain and positive that those younger and more pliable will be influenced by a fine example. Much more is expected of them than of the less critically placed citizen.


It would seem that several people in the AD and in the University's Administration, including the single person who is designated as the ultimate authority for Institutional Control, are in flagrant violation. 19.01.2 may read like the "good behavior" clause for Supreme Court service, but like the Medicaid portion of the recent PPACA ruling, this is a time when the NCAA has to put its foot down and say, "We may not have a bright line standard for determining when a violation of 19.01.2 has occurred, but by God this one certainly qualifies."

You sir get it. I haven't had time to search the manual like you did but knew the type of words in there. 19.01.2 is their death knell.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrlbees]

Moral obligations etc, none of that matters. If Penn State is sanctioned for the molestation then the NCAA can sanction every school for every athletic criminal transgression that occurs.

Apples and oranges. PedSt made themselves part of the crime. Not the same thing as a coach committing a crime. In the mid 90's (or earlier) if PedSt calla the authorities, they're clean of it all. But instead, the ignored it and brushed it under the carpet hoping nobody would see while probably dozens of other kids got raped. Even in their own facilities. Death penalty is deserved.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[baggerbob]

I'm not for the death penalty, but to me Joe Paterno's name should be removed from the record books. We shouldn't in 50 to 75 years be discussing Joe's great record that no one will break.

 

[billsin01]

Moral obligations etc, none of that matters.

Believe me, I am the last person to be trying to make some sort of argument from some sort of sanctimonious moral high ground. I expect athletes to be immature, entitled and arrogant. I expect coaches to be arrogant blow hards who place FAR too much importance on what is basically recreation and will stop at basically nothing to win. Unfair? Absolutely , but my point is that I really don't care what these guys are up to for the most part. But where this is different is that it's a program taking itself SO seriously that it's putting it's reputation ahead of the welfare of a chain of kids being molested in its own facilities.

If Penn State is sanctioned for the molestation then the NCAA can sanction every school for every athletic criminal transgression that occurs.

How are you making this leap? A rash of kids doing blow or three athletes charged with sexual assault or three off-the-field criminal incidents involving players or a cheating ring or whatever -- we're going to cite the PSU situation as comparable? I don't buy that and I can't imagine a scenario in which people don't see this thing as the very definition of extenuating circumstances.

 

[tipphill]

I'm not for the death penalty, but to me Joe Paterno's name should be removed from the record books. We shouldn't in 50 to 75 years be discussing Joe's great record that no one will break.

joepa was a major player for sure,but spanier and curley legally were the decion makers.

 

[Crusty]

Unless I missed it in all the hoopla, why hasn't PSU had the decency to apply some self-imposed sanctions? Until that is done, I don't think they have learned anything yet.

 

[rrlbees]

Did we all forget about this? The NCAA sent a letter of investigation to PedSt under the by-laws of institutional control and ethical behavior. And this was long before much more came out about the coverup.

http://www.psu.edu/ur/2011/NCAA.pdf

So I guess the NCAA feels this is very much in their jurisdiction. Hopefully they have some balls.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Moontan]

Did we all forget about this? The NCAA sent a letter of investigation to PedSt under the by-laws of institutional control and ethical behavior. And this was long before much more came out about the coverup.

The answers to questions 2 and 3, if ever provided, should make for some interesting spinning, err, reading. The fact that two PSU administrators face perjury charges for activities directly related to one of those questions means they will have to admit at least some failure.

Failure to cooperate with the NCAA investigation will only lead to increased punishment, or likelihood thereof.

PSU has been transferred from an institution that had the opportunity be an example of how best to deal with such situations (even as late as 2001) to now being one that serves as an example of how to let the protection of an athletics program allow further crimes to be committed and permanently scar the image of the institution.

 

[44PRIDE]

Sure, they have a rule written on paper that addresses this. But do any of you really HONESTLY think Penn State will get the death penalty? Really?

What should happen and what will happen are two completely different things.

 

[tipphill]

i really think the ncaa has no choice in this now--or it will also be forever discredited---they will give the death penalty and let psu appeal it. if ncaa does not take the sternest of action they will be impotent as a sanctioning body. better they give the death penalty as a course of action, if psu wins an appeal,at least they did what was necessary

 

[rrlbees]

Sure, they have a rule written on paper that addresses this. But do any of you really HONESTLY think Penn State will get the death penalty? Really?

What should happen and what will happen are two completely different things.

I'm pretty sure most everyone realizes that. That's why most posts use the word should instead of will.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Moontan]

Sure, they have a rule written on paper that addresses this. But do any of you really HONESTLY think Penn State will get the death penalty? Really?

What should happen and what will happen are two completely different things.

While many believe that the death penalty should be levied, there are severe penalties that hopefully will be imposed.

A 5-year bowl ban, banishment (from PSU) of all coaches who were present during the Sandusky era, coupled with a 10-year reduction in scholarships would be a good start. It allows them to keep their program, but will severely deter all but die-hard PSU families from sending their high profile sons there to play.