Jerry Sandusky and Related Trials

[CBear3]

Representatives from all over the country milled about outside the football offices at Ownby Stadium waiting to snare a few minutes of the players' time.

Among the larger schools that were reportedly represented on campus were Penn State, Arkansas, Texas A&M, Texas, Oklahoma, Houston, U.C.L.A., Arizona, Tulsa, Alabama and Kansas.

The only time I've heard Kansas mentioned as a large football school (previous they only had large football coaches).

[MWB]

Haven't listened to this yet, but figure some would be interested:

“@JayBilas: Very thoughtful and interesting podcast with Stewart Mandel and John Infante on Penn State, NCAA: http://t.co/fSRQb7gP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[steve784]

The emotional, irrational, angry, alumna in me agrees that PSU as an institution deserves to be punished--swiftly, soundly, and thoroughly. The rational academic in me has concerns about the Freeh report's methodology and overreliance on inference in making conclusions. It's funny, like I have a split personality on all this. I've talked with colleagues, some with ties to PSU, some not, who are experiencing a similar dilemma. I have yet to talk with an attorney who believes that the report is "sound," but my sample for my little unscientific survey is 4.

Make that 5. Exactly how I feel.

[steve784]

Haven't listened to this yet, but figure some would be interested:

“@JayBilas: Very thoughtful and interesting podcast with Stewart Mandel and John Infante on Penn State, NCAA: http://t.co/fSRQb7gP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About 10 minutes in, and indeed very thoughtful and interesting. I will say if you disagree with Rocco on this matter, you probably don't want to listen.

[MWB]

Yeah, Mandel is Rocco's guy, so that's what I figured. I'll listen tonight or tomorrow hopefully.

[DudeMan2766]

well people think the ncaa shouldnt be allowed to do it. PSU didnt do it themselves, so who?

The government, the victims.

Why hasn't Arkansas faced sanctions for Bobby Petrino's transgressions?

Oh yeah. Everyone would have really accepted the government stepping in on this. And people think the NCAA had an agenda?? You think the victims should have decided the punishment?

[Rocco]

Yeah, Mandel is Rocco's guy, so that's what I figured. I'll listen tonight or tomorrow hopefully.

I can't help it that Mandel is as smart as I am.

[DudeMan2766]

From the quote you posted yesterday Rocco from Mandel was he was playing the 'boy these sanctions must really make those victims feel better' card. And if thats his stance I wont be listening to the podcast

[Rocco]

well people think the ncaa shouldnt be allowed to do it. PSU didnt do it themselves, so who?

The government, the victims.

Why hasn't Arkansas faced sanctions for Bobby Petrino's transgressions?

Oh yeah. Everyone would have really accepted the government stepping in on this. And people think the NCAA had an agenda?? You think the victims should have decided the punishment?

http://www.mcall.com/news/nationworld/p ... 0717.story" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The government is going to get involved already, which has been pointed out numerous times. PSU likely violated federal law which gives the government grounds to intervene. This doesn't include the state's charges against Curley and Schultz currently pending.

As for the victims, it isn't unheard of for victims to be consulted in matters regarding punishment. You generally don't let them decide the punishment but they are often asked how they would feel about certain things. At least one victim has said he didn't want to see PSU get punished and wished he had input.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf-dr- ... ncaaf.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rocco]

Haven't listened to this yet, but figure some would be interested:

“@JayBilas: Very thoughtful and interesting podcast with Stewart Mandel and John Infante on Penn State, NCAA: http://t.co/fSRQb7gP" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

About 10 minutes in, and indeed very thoughtful and interesting. I will say if you disagree with Rocco on this matter, you probably don't want to listen.

I haven't listened to it because I've reached saturation point on the subject at the moment.

[MWB]

It was an interesting listen, and really only about 25 minutes dedicated to that. Two things I learned - apologies if they've already been mentioned - were:
1. Emmert was authorized by the Division 1 Board of Directors and by the NCAA Executive Committee to negotiate with Penn State. These are the two most important bodies in the NCAA according to John Infante (who supposedly knows a lot about the NCAA). That seems to contradict the notion that he was just one guy doing what he wanted.

2. Emmert was only authorized to negotiate a Consent Decree.

[tifosi77]

People are upset the NCAA didnt have a documented clear cut rule on what they can do in situations like this. Which says to me those would be happy if ncaa woukd have just said, welp no rules on this, carry in as usual Penn State.

If you think the former automatically begets the latter, then you have a serious comprehension deficit.

Apparently I do. Please explain to me just how the hell one thinks PSU deserved punishment, yet believes no one has the right to punish them??

Administrators at the University - including the Athletic Director and head coach of the football team - conspired to cover up the existence of a sexual predator in the football program, perhaps criminally so. If that's what happened, then the people involved ought to be dealt with by all legitimate means available. Criminal and civil sanctions are, in my opinion, the most appropriate way of dealing with this. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of an athletic 'governing body' (not sure that's the correct phrase) levying sanctions for infractions that aren't athletic in nature, or at least rooted in actions aimed at benefiting the athletic department in terms of competitive advantage.

Spoiler:

The fact that you think the NCAA is the sole front that Penn State is being punished is laughable and naive at best.

Thank you, I have been thinking this for the last few pages. People are saying that now Penn State can finally realize there is more to the school than the football program, yet the only punishments they think matter are the ones that affect the football team.

You're essentially saying, "We're going to tell you that winning football games isn't important by taking away wins and making you lose." Why would you take away something so unimportant? I get this.

The emotional, irrational, angry, alumna in me agrees that PSU as an institution deserves to be punished--swiftly, soundly, and thoroughly. The rational academic in me has concerns about the Freeh report's methodology and overreliance on inference in making conclusions. It's funny, like I have a split personality on all this. I've talked with colleagues, some with ties to PSU, some not, who are experiencing a similar dilemma. I have yet to talk with an attorney who believes that the report is "sound," but my sample for my little unscientific survey is 4.

I'm OK with the sanctions with 2 exceptions:

1. I thought vacating wins was petty. I get why they did it, but I thought it was unnecessary because the NCAA's primary constituent is the student-athlete, not the coach. I know it's simple record-keeping. But, without a disclaimer of sorts, the record, which is intended to present history, reflects a punitive response to an action committed by the student-athletes. (I'm on record as saying that I don't care about Joe's legacy.)

2. A biggie: I have a problem with the sanctions being based on the investigation in the report, regardless of who's imposing the sanctions. But, in this case, the NCAA, as a governing body comprised of academic administrators whose concerns are students' academics as well as athletics, relied on an investigation that really doesn't pass the "academic smell test." Emmert, as a public affairs academic by training, should see the problems with enacting policy on a report loaded with inference.

(I think this is what tifosi77, Rocco and Toews are arguing--I apologize if I'm off base or misrepresenting your position. I don't want to start it all up again, but as an academic, I absolutely agree with them. I understand, however, that time was of the essence here, and we're talking about violation of children, gross negligence, not ivory tower BS, etc. I'm now punting here on purpose.)

I vacillate on whether the NCAA had jurisdiction--paralysis by analysis. I consider myself an even-keeled person capable of critical analysis. But throughout all of this, I get so far, then, like I said, I find myself punting. I'll blame my broken heart. Irrationality wins.

You've summed it up quite nicely here. And yes that's the point I'm arguing.

[Rocco]

but how can you justify punishing the current players and coaches who weren't involved?

other than the fact that they've done this several times to a bunch of programs in the past and no one said boo about the unfairness of it then?

This comes up a lot. I've only mentioned this a couple times instead of 150-200, so I guess I can go over it again:

1) Yes, people complain about the prospective punishments in those situations. Collateral damage always sucks in anything, be it lawsuits, wars, etc. and people always bring up this argument.

2) Usually in those cases the people responsible for committing the violations are punished as well as the school. Tressel was show-caused and has a 5 game suspension waiting for him if he coaches again. The RB coach at USC who was responsible was show-caused,and I believe Mike Ornstein, the agent who paid Bush, was sanctioned as well. Dave Bliss at Baylor was hit with a show-cause. They put a show-cause on John Blake for his actions at UNC. Bruce Pearl and his assistants were hit with show-causes for their shenanigans at Tennessee. For those wondering, a show-cause requires any school who wants to hire an individual with that order over his head to explain to the NCAA why the school should not be punished for hiring that individual to coach. It acts as a blackballing for the offending coach and keeps them out of the business. There are also instances where the school is ordered to disassociate itself with unsavory boosters. In addition to penalizing the program, the individual offender is punished.

3) The NCAA rules exist to keep colleges from crossing the line between amateurism and professionalism. That's what the NCAA does. It is by definition a cartel. Remove the negative connotation from that word and that's the NCAA. The rules punish behavior that essentially isn't illegal by criminal statutes or if it is illegal is not punished enough to act as a deterrent. Part of why the schools are punished is to encourage them to maintain control of boosters and their athletes so that they aren't tempted to break the rules and become professional sports with athletes compensated by something other than a scholarship, free room and board, access to extra tutors, and all the perks of a big-time college athlete. Part of the reason for the historical tendency of the NCAA to stay out of criminal matters is that the criminal code applies far easier and acts as a much better deterrent to criminal behavior than NCAA sanctions. There are obviously arguments about the effectiveness of the NCAA's rulebook, but since SMU most of the incidents involve bad booster behavior and not the schools themselves paying players.

[Rocco]

Administrators at the University - including the Athletic Director and head coach of the football team - conspired to cover up the existence of a sexual predator in the football program, perhaps criminally so. If that's what happened, then the people involved ought to be dealt with by all legitimate means available. Criminal and civil sanctions are, in my opinion, the most appropriate way of dealing with this. I'm uncomfortable with the notion of an athletic 'governing body' (not sure that's the correct phrase) levying sanctions for infractions that aren't athletic in nature, or at least rooted in actions aimed at benefiting the athletic department in terms of competitive advantage.

If I may jump in to follow up briefly before someone else starts screaming, I have seen people argue that this may have provided a competitive advantage to the football team. Had PSU told the NCAA "no deal", this would have gone to the COI, and the NCAA would have made this argument to show the COI had grounds to act. At least 2 former heads have the enforcement committee have said that this argument would have been a difficult sell (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;), and the NCAA's case is not based on that premise according to the Consent Decree.

[tifosi77]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

[Pavel Bure]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term. If it was worded "The NCAA has never punished a school for child rape." You'd be hard pressed to find someone that says they shouldn't if it was involved with college sports. You people upset about the punishment and the method are as I said before just whining and nitpicking to find something to complain about because you have an ax to grind with the NCAA.

[Rocco]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term. If it was worded "The NCAA has never punished a school for child rape." You'd be hard pressed to find someone that says they shouldn't if it was involved with college sports. You people upset about the punishment and the method are as I said before just whining and nitpicking to find something to complain about because you have an ax to grind with the NCAA.

They had the opportunity to punish Baylor for murder and did not- their punishments were based on paying the players and not murder. They didn't punish UVA when a lacrosse player murdered another. I realize child rape is awful but murder isn't exactly a trespassing ticket.

[Pavel Bure]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term. If it was worded "The NCAA has never punished a school for child rape." You'd be hard pressed to find someone that says they shouldn't if it was involved with college sports. You people upset about the punishment and the method are as I said before just whining and nitpicking to find something to complain about because you have an ax to grind with the NCAA.

They had the opportunity to punish Baylor for murder and did not- their punishments were based on paying the players and not murder. They didn't punish UVA when a lacrosse player murdered another. I realize child rape is awful but murder isn't exactly a trespassing ticket.

So they made mistakes and should continue to make them? Not to mention the sanctions weren't handed down because of the criminal activity but because of the failure of the institution specifically the football program. Grind that ax.

[Rocco]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term. If it was worded "The NCAA has never punished a school for child rape." You'd be hard pressed to find someone that says they shouldn't if it was involved with college sports. You people upset about the punishment and the method are as I said before just whining and nitpicking to find something to complain about because you have an ax to grind with the NCAA.

They had the opportunity to punish Baylor for murder and did not- their punishments were based on paying the players and not murder. They didn't punish UVA when a lacrosse player murdered another. I realize child rape is awful but murder isn't exactly a trespassing ticket.

So they made mistakes and should continue to make them? Not to mention the sanctions weren't handed down because of the criminal activity but because of the failure of the institution specifically the football program. Grind that ax.

Whether it is a mistake depends on whether you think the NCAA should be involved in the legal system. No one expects a HOA to investigate triple murders on their property. I wish I had your ability to say that anyone who disagreed with me was simply grinding an axe. If anyone's doing that it's you.

[DontToewsMeBro]

(http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/ ... ent-others" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

There's an important line in that article:

"The NCAA had never punished a school for criminal behavior."

Probably because it has no business being that business.

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term.

Do you actually read what you type or are you just purposefully trolling now?

[columbia]

I see his thread has returned to "I disagree, therefore you're trolling."

That's productive.

[Factorial]

[tifosi77]

Criminal behavior is such a blanket term. If it was worded "The NCAA has never punished a school for child rape." You'd be hard pressed to find someone that says they shouldn't if it was involved with college sports.

Baylor's basketball program was sanctioned by the NCAA for:

* Coach Bliss paying for tuition for two players.
* 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 to woo 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."

Nowhere on that list do you see an NCAA sanction for Carlton Dotson murdering his teammate Patrick Dennehy.

[EDIT: Just read Rocco's comment bringing this up.]

You people upset about the punishment and the method are as I said before just whining and nitpicking to find something to complain about because you have an ax to grind with the NCAA.

I do not think it is biologically possible for me to care less about the NCAA or college sports. I honestly don't think I could even tell you the last time I watched a Penn State game on TV, altho I do remember watching the Texas - USC national championship game a few years ago solely for the schadenfreude aspect of rubbing it in the noses of all the insufferable SC fans out here. My interest in this discussion is purely about the exercise of power by a sporting authority in a non-sporting realm.

[pfim]

well people think the ncaa shouldnt be allowed to do it. PSU didnt do it themselves, so who?

The government, the victims.

Why hasn't Arkansas faced sanctions for Bobby Petrino's transgressions?

Oh yeah. Everyone would have really accepted the government stepping in on this. And people think the NCAA had an agenda?? You think the victims should have decided the punishment?

I think the victims will be suing.

[MWB]

Baylor basketball and up did not cover up the murder. If they had, would the NCAA gotten involved? I think so.