Updates About Penn State Scandal UPDATED 6/12: PSU has spent $45.9M on scandal

Donate To GopherHole

dpodoll68 said:
What NCAA rule was broken? Cite it specifically for me, please.

Further, please outline how a single Penn St. football player or coach benefitted from Jerry Sandusky raping little boys.......
Click to expand...


I don't know what rules the NCAA has pertaining to the governance of its own member schools and I am not going to spend time looking for them. I do, however, believe that by whatever authority the NCAA has to punish member schools for using an inappropriate mascot, they likely may also choose to punish a member school for covering up criminal acts committed on campus by their athletic department employee.

I don't have any doubt that Penn St. figured to gain from this cover-up by saving embarrassment and possibly saving their revered coach from forced retirement, possibly saving the loss of significant donations, and possibly saving the loss of football recruits.
 

Calgoph said:
I don't know what rules the NCAA has pertaining to the governance of its own member schools and I am not going to spend time looking for them. I do, however, believe that by whatever authority the NCAA has to punish member schools for using an inappropriate mascot, they likely may also choose to punish a member school for covering up criminal acts committed on campus by their athletic department employee.

I don't have any doubt that Penn St. figured to gain from this cover-up by saving embarrassment and possibly saving their revered coach from forced retirement, possibly saving the loss of significant donations, and possibly saving the loss of football recruits.
Click to expand...

You are absolutely right that the Sandusky case is related to recruiting and I strongly suspect that one of the reasons the cover up was done. As I have said earlier Joe Paterno was notorious for not permitting anything to be done that could affect his program negatively. That is why I wish the NCAA would use the lack of institutional control section to punish Penn State for what they did. It time that the NCAA does the right thing for once.
 

station19 said:
Organizing tournaments.

Selling TV rights.

Making sure student-athletes are really student-athletes.

That's it.
Click to expand...

Judge: We are not talking tourney's and student qualifications. We are talking about moral responsibility that goes beyond the charter of the organization.

Defendant: "Hey, I followed my mission. Why should I help the school fix its legal problem."

Judge: If all you stand for is tournaments, admissions qualifications and TV rights, what good are you!

Defendant: "Does that mean I should have done something else?"

Judge: Yes, dumbass, you don't have to spell it out in your charter to have legal obligations to assist.

Defendant: But, Penn State can do this for themselves.

Judge: You have a third party obligation to assist.

Defendant: I don't get it!

Judge: You don't have to get it. I'm telling you that is the way it works.

Defendant: oohhh!

Judge: Now its sinking in.
 

Dean S - like it or not, the NCAA has a (huge) rulebook that spells out what the Institution is - and is not - responsible for.

If the NCAA did what you suggest, and took action regardless of whether that action was supported by its own rules, they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

And "moral responsibility" - that is a very tricky door to open, and even harder to legislate or judiciate.

There are existing legal avenues that can be used to hold Penn State accountable - not to mention the landslide of civil suits that will follow the Sandusky verdict.

That may not be enough to satisfy your moral outrage, but in our society of laws, it will have to suffice.
 


short ornery norwegian said:
Dean S - like it or not, the NCAA has a (huge) rulebook that spells out what the Institution is - and is not - responsible for.

If the NCAA did what you suggest, and took action regardless of whether that action was supported by its own rules, they would be opening themselves up to a lawsuit.

And "moral responsibility" - that is a very tricky door to open, and even harder to legislate or judiciate.

There are existing legal avenues that can be used to hold Penn State accountable - not to mention the landslide of civil suits that will follow the Sandusky verdict.

That may not be enough to satisfy your moral outrage, but in our society of laws, it will have to suffice.
Click to expand...

+19

The NCAA is to oversee participation and competition of collegiate athletics. It is not the judicial system of The United States.
 

How about this venue

station19 said:
+19

Witness Exhibit A Unnamed University
​
Disorderly conduct: Conduct which is disorderly, lewd, or indecent, breach of peace, or aiding and abetting, or procuring another person to breach the peace on university premises or at functions sponsored by or participated in by members of the university community is prohibited.

Witness Exhibit B
http://www.nacua.org/documents/NCAA_StatementReChildSexualAbuse.pdf

Witness Exhibit C unnamed university
Student-athletes who do not conform to this code may be subject to consequences for their actions that may include but are not limited to: a warning, dismissal from the team, reduction or withdrawal of athletically related financial aid, and suspension from the University. In addition to all University policies, student-athletes are responsible for following the standards in the NCAA student-athlete behavior statement and the Ohio Valley Conference Sportsmanship Statement as well as all city, state and federal laws.​

Witness Exhibit D Unnamed University
It is imperative that student-athletes recognize the significance of their behavior as visible members of the campus and local communities. This same attention, however, also should inspire the institution to assure that its student-athletes receive the same treatment as students generally in disciplinary or criminal matters. Intercollegiate athletics cannot be viewed as a refuge where student-athletes may escape responsibilities imposed on all citizens, nor should student-athletes be held to a higher standard of conduct than that imposed on the student body as a whole. (Adopted by the NCAA Presidents Commission, July 1992.)​

Witness Exhibit E Unnamed university
Student-athletes enrolled at NCAA member institutions should reflect the high standards of honesty and integrity set by the Association for conduct of Intercollegiate Athletics. As NCAA member institutions strive to fulfill their educational missions, they share a
right and a responsibility to preserve order and encourage ethical, responsible behavior through the formulation of standards of conduct for student-athletes and the designadtion of procedures by which those standards shall be enforced.​

Not only do NCAA institutions recognize in their individual code of conduct statements that athletes need to abide by the law of the land, but are obligated by their institution to abide by it, and that the institutions abide by the law of the land, and that it is a requirement of the NCAA body as a whole. Therefore, the NCAA has set up an enforcement code, through its NCAA Student Behavior Statement on governing institutions on matters of law. The above institutions, just a small sampling agree to these principles and agree that it is a requirement of their membership in the NCAA to follow the law.

Penn State having failed that statement can and should be sanctioned for failure to abide by the code of conduct because that code of conduct can not be higher or lower in standard than that of any student or member of the institution as per the NCAA Presidents Commission statement of 1992. So, yes, I think the NCAA has the right to impose sanctions on Penn State and all other members have already agreed by their own compliance statements agree that the NCAA has the right to impose sanctions on institutions that do not comply with these statements. The power of the NCAA is to enforce the rules of the Universities which belong to the NCAA. Penn State, by agreeing to abide by the NCAA code of conduct, will now have to enforce its own rules on conduct, or be sanctioned by the NCAA in things like tournament rights, scholarships, etc.

So, no, the NCAA rules of conduct do not disregard criminal behavior. They have a code of conduct that all members have published on line agreeing to abiding by the law of the land and in treating each student with the same protections. In my fine mind, the Student Behavior Statement of the member institutions, modeled after the NCAA guidelines on the same conduct, requires members to uphold the law. Those same requirements are the requirements of membership. And, the control of membership rights resides solely at the discretion of the NCAA and its members, which therefore it allows to investigate misconduct, make a report of findings, rule on those findings, and make sanctions under the rules of the organization on member institutions, which Penn State has already agreed upon, which is my final exhibit.

Penn State Exhibit: (from ESPN) "NCAA spokesman Bob Williams said attorneys for the legislative body have confirmed the Penn State circumstances apply to a possible violation of unethical behavior standards and possible violation of rules of institutional control and oversight. Williams said the NCAA has not launched an enforcement investigation but instead a review that could prompt a formal investigation if recommended by the NCAAs senior management group." November 2011 as a result of the Sandusky investigation.

So, go hide in your legal shell and know that not only can the NCAA do something about Penn State, they already have begun to act on Penn State.
Click to expand...
 

Dean S

Thanks for your analysis. I have always suspected that NCAA and universities must have broad enough rules in place about behavior that could apply to the Penn State situation. The real question is do they want to pursue this. From my perspective they certainly should if they hope to be able to say that they have values.
 

Of course Penn St. can legally enforce a signed code of conduct on its own student-athletes. The problem here is that no Penn St. student-athletes were involved, at all, in any of these events.

What else ya got?
 



dpodoll68 said:
Of course Penn St. can legally enforce a signed code of conduct on its own student-athletes. The problem here is that no Penn St. student-athletes were involved, at all, in any of these events.

What else ya got?
Click to expand...

You are misssing the point! We are talking about the school's behavior!
 

Killjoy said:
We are talking about the school's behavior!
Click to expand...

Yup. And the NCAA only enforces punishment's for the school's athletic department. It doesn't deal with issues in the wider university unless they interact with the athletic department. And the issues here are not athletic department issues related in any way to the student athletes the NCAA is interested in. It's a criminal and civil legal matter. You guys are the ones missing the point by trying to expand the NCAA's punishments to events outside of its scope and interest.
 

dpodoll68 said:
What NCAA rule was broken? Cite it specifically for me, please.

Further, please outline how a single Penn St. football player or coach benefitted from Jerry Sandusky raping little boys.

The Woog comparison is silly. Giving benefits to players is a direct and straightforward violation of NCAA rules. Sheltering pederasts is not. I'm sorry that the NCAA isn't going to punish Penn St. football so you can feel better about yourself.
Click to expand...

Just for the record, I feel pretty good about myself! I'm awesome. And, if there is no benefit to sheltering pedarasts, maybe they do it just for fun.
 




The ideal outcome would be a self imposed PSU penalty that has the nod of approval from Emmert and Delany. No investigation, just announce in tandem with the Freeh report.

I think it will be unacceptable if there is no football penalty. This stuff was swept under the rug so as not to kill the golden goose. That is not acceptable in our conference. Athletics are meant to be kept in perspective.
 

badgergopher said:
The ideal outcome would be a self imposed PSU penalty that has the nod of approval from Emmert and Delany. No investigation, just announce in tandem with the Freeh report.

I think it will be unacceptable if there is no football penalty. This stuff was swept under the rug so as not to kill the golden goose. That is not acceptable in our conference.
Click to expand...

So even though no NCAA rules were broken, the correct move is for PSU to institute NCAA penalties and punish players and coaches who weren't present at the time that no rules were broken. Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

This is a criminal and civil issue that will be addressed through the legal system. Penn State is "going to pay" many times over in the civil lawsuits it will be facing. There is no basis for making this into an NCAA issue.
 

GoAUpher said:
So even though no NCAA rules were broken, the correct move is for PSU to institute NCAA penalties and punish players and coaches who weren't present at the time that no rules were broken. Yea, that makes a lot of sense.

This is a criminal and civil issue that will be addressed through the legal system. Penn State is "going to pay" many times over in the civil lawsuits it will be facing. There is no basis for making this into an NCAA issue.
Click to expand...

Bingo.
 

badgergopher said:
The ideal outcome would be a self imposed PSU penalty that has the nod of approval from Emmert and Delany. No investigation, just announce in tandem with the Freeh report.

I think it will be unacceptable if there is no football penalty. This stuff was swept under the rug so as not to kill the golden goose. That is not acceptable in our conference. Athletics are meant to be kept in perspective.
Click to expand...

I agree with this 100% This is a football issue.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22/bernstein-justice-done-but-more-to-do/

Let’s all hope the federal investigators follow the money trail, follow the emails, follow the secret files, follow every trail as far up as it goes. We have a long-missing DA, labyrinthine connections between Penn State football, the Second Mile, deep-pocketed donors, school officials, and current Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett. Joe Paterno made millions of personal dollars with Second-Mile-connected deals – real-estate, bottled-water, convenience stores. And that’s just what has been chronicled by reporters. He, Spanier and Schultz had every venal reason to stay as quiet as possible for as long as any of them knew, whether 1994, 1998, 2001, or earlier.

Sandusky’s charity-as-victim-farm was intertwined with Penn State football since 1977, and we now know from the sworn testimony of other longtime assistant coaches that it was common for boys to be showering in their midst. There’s more than one sick bastard here, and more than one willfully ignorant adult.
Click to expand...

Or before you decry that as a opinion piece, here are some interesting facts about the financing of a Second Mile venture during the time of the McQueary allegations:

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/12/05/120511-news-paterno-business-1-5/
 

Also if you forget, The NCAA sent a letter of Inquiry to Penn St. back in November:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/s...into-institutional-control-at-penn-state.html

In the letter, the N.C.A.A.’s president, Mark Emmert, said that the acts described in a grand jury report — including allegations that Sandusky raped or sexually assaulted eight boys over a period of 15 years — “try not only the integrity of the university, but that of intercollegiate athletics as a whole.” Emmert said that the N.C.A.A. would examine both a lack of institutional control, one of the most serious charges the N.C.A.A. can make against a university, as well as “the actions, and inactions, of relevant responsible personnel.”
Click to expand...
 

Nope. Not a football issue. Football players and/or coaches being involved does not make it a football issue. Sorry.
 

CrocShots said:
I agree with this 100% This is a football issue.

http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/06/22/bernstein-justice-done-but-more-to-do/



Or before you decry that as a opinion piece, here are some interesting facts about the financing of a Second Mile venture during the time of the McQueary allegations:

http://www.thedaily.com/page/2011/12/05/120511-news-paterno-business-1-5/
Click to expand...

There isn't anything in either of those linked pieces that falls under the NCAA's powers. Nothing. You're suggesting the NCAA investigate things that it's own rules don't cover, including private business dealings. By doing so, you're going against one of the primary points being made by Dan Bernstein (who wrote the first piece you linked). And I quote:
Every authority with every power of jurisdiction now has work to do.
Click to expand...

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over any of this. Nothing that has come to light publicly shows that any NCAA rules were broken.
 

CrocShots said:
Also if you forget, The NCAA sent a letter of Inquiry to Penn St. back in November:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/s...into-institutional-control-at-penn-state.html
Click to expand...

They should feel free to make sure no NCAA rules were broken...that sort of due diligence is reasonable and is to be expected. But a notice that they will investigate doesn't mean that any NCAA rules were broken. There are no publicly listed facts in this case that I'm aware of which suggest an NCAA rule was broken. Unless the NCAA comes forward with something new, there is nothing to suggest they have anything to punish PSU for.
 

The smoke is still smoldering and the lawyers gather round to drink cognac and smoke stogies claiming Rome will not burn. The big football stories are sure to come out. This isn't over by any means.
 

Dean S said:
The big football stories are sure to come out. This isn't over by any means.
Click to expand...
This may well prove true. But until it does, anyone calling for the NCAA to do anything is just being silly.
 

For those who think the NCAA can/will do nothing regarding Penn St. I offer the following.

This past November NCAA president Mark Emmert was interviewed on public radio by Kai Ryssdal and here is an excerpt.

(Quote) Ryssdal: As the body that is charged, in theory, with guaranteeing the safety of student athletes in American colleges and universities, how are you going to do that? What is your role in something like Penn State?

Emmert: Well we have rules and bylaws that -- while they were never written to address anything quite like this of course -- they speak directly to the control that institutions have to maintain over their athletic departments and their programs. And they speak very directly to ethical behavior of people in those programs and we'll apply those bylaws, and if the allegations hold up, then we'll act accordingly.

Ryssdal: Let me make sure I understand you: There is room here for NCAA sanctions against Penn State?

Emmert: We have a very strong interest in making sure that our programs are reflective of the best values of athletics and of universities. (End quote)
Link to above: http://www.marketplace.org/topics/life/what-role-will-ncaa-take-penn-state-scandal


As far as I know, Emmert has never backed away from this position. Here's what an AP article in SI.com reported yesterday quoting CBS Sports Network recruiting analyst Tom Lemming.

(Quote) Lemming said what does concern players when it comes to programs racked by scandal is the possibility of NCAA sanctions.

The governing body has said it will examine whether Penn State violated bylaws covering institutional control and ethical conduct in its handling of accusations against Sandusky.

NCAA President Mark Emmert has made clear the organization will let the legal process and other investigations play out before deciding whether to weigh in.

Spokeswoman Stacey Osburn said the NCAA had no further comment in light of the Sandusky verdict and that its previous statement about Penn State "still stands'' after the verdict. (End quote)
Link to above: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/06/25/penn-state-jerry-sandusky.ap/index.html


I think it's pretty clear that President Emmert is going to do something eventually. Sandusky stands convicted, Penn St. has admitted its culpability, and the AD is being charged with perjury. I suspect the NCAA may wait to see if anything new comes out of the perjury trial and then proceed from there. If Emmert waits for all the civil suits to settle, this could go on for years.
 

It's not about can/will. It's about should they do something if no evidence of NCAA rules violations are uncovered. If the NCAA does anything here with no rules being broken then they're simply making it up as they go along. It's not like the NCAA has a lot of credibility all the time anyhow, but this would take the cake. If the NCAA goes down the road of punishing PSU without any rules being violated then they better start punishing every school/dept that has a coach with a DUI, etc.

In the meantime, neither interview you quote make it clear that the NCAA will do something eventually. It makes it clear that they will do something IF NCAA rules were broken. All Emmert says in the first interview is A) NCAA rules don't really address this situation (i.e. we might not have any standing to pursue action) and B) they do exist and we have a strong interest in making sure that the school didn't break them. Nowhere in there does he suggest the NCAA will do anything.
Then from your quotation of Lemming's interview:
The governing body has said it will examine whether Penn State violated bylaws covering institutional control and ethical conduct in its handling of accusations against Sandusky.
Click to expand...
In other words, "we're looking into it."

I agree, this could take a long time because the NCAA may choose to wait until all the legal maneuvering is complete (since this will allow them to benefit from legal discovery that they don't have the power to perform in many cases).
 

dpodoll68 said:
Nope. Not a football issue. Football players and/or coaches being involved does not make it a football issue. Sorry.
Click to expand...
Your wrong as always - it's still a football issue.
 

Obviously this was an entirely unforeseen issue for the NCAA, so they don't have any specific rules pertaining to this type of stuff. Therefore, in my opinion, they need to take a step back and ask themselves what their role is in the situation. They should do this by looking at their mission statement and trying to determine if this falls within their scope. The mission statement is below with my opinion below each point in blue:

NCAA Mission Statement​

Core Ideology:
The NCAA's core ideology consists of two notions: core purpose - the organization's reason for being - and core values - essential and enduring principles that guide an organization.

Core Purpose:
Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

The core purpose can therefore be broken up in two parts:

1) "To govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable, and sportsmanlike manner." The Jerry Sandusky situation does not fall into this category as his actions did not affect competition. If, however, the situation were found to be bigger and boosters and/or money was somehow involved, that would be a whole new can of worms.

2) "To integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount." The Jerry Sandusky situation also does not fall into this category because his actions did not affect the educational experiences of student-athletes. IF, however, the line ended at "higher education," then an argument could be made that his actions could fall under the scope of the core purpose. It doesn't end there though and the purpose only pertains to the integration of athletics and education with regard to the student-athlete.

Core Values:
The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:
· The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.

This value does not apply as it only pertains to the students and their role as student-athletes.

· The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.

This value is very broad and open and does apply to the situation.

· The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.

This value does not apply IMO as his actions affected neither academics nor athletics (slightly debatable depending on your definition of athletics).

· The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.

This value applies the most to the situation. Obviously it affected the PSU community and the identity of member institutions.

· An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.

This value may apply to the situation depending on how you interpret it. If you interpret it saying it seeks to protect the opportunities of coaches and administrators to advance, you could say that all of the PSU coaches' opportunities (especially McQueary's) were affected. However, if you interpret it only in regards to maintaining diversity in the opportunities, it wouldn't apply at all.

· Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.

This value would not apply to the situation as it would seek to allow the leadership of the university and the Board of Trustees to handle the situation on its own.

· Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

This value would not apply except for the President's role in the situation and his unwillingness to do anything about it at the time. Therefore the value very well may apply.
Click to expand...

It is important to note this only takes into account the Sandusky situation. I believe that the NCAA should and is further investigating the Penn St AD. There may very well be other cover-ups by their athletic department that more affect the student-athletes and fall comfortably in the scope of the NCAA and make this an easier decision for them to make. Judging by their Mission Statement though, it is still a difficult decision for them. You could make the argument that because it does not apply to both their Core Purpose and Core Values, they should take no action. The situation clearly applies to only 2 of the Core Values and both of the values are somewhat broad. When you think about other situations such as paying athletes, they easily apply to both the Core Purpose and most of the Core Values. However, I do believe that the Mission Statement does not leave it out of the realm of possibility to punish Penn State if they want to.

Another important thing to take into account is the precedent the NCAA has set in regards to coaches and AD members who have broken the law. If the NCAA wanted to take action against them, it would have applied to the Mission Statement in the same way.

1) Former Wisconsin associate AD John Chadima's allegations of sexual assault against students and providing alcohol to minors.
2) Arkansas Coach Bobby Petrino's cover-up, lies, and gifts to another University of Arkansas employee.
3) Mike Haywood's felony charges of domestic abuse while the Head Coach at Pitt.
4) The DUI's that many college coaches have received over the years.

I think most people agree the NCAA should not take actions for these examples. Obviously there is a difference between the actions here and raping children, but the principle is similar. I don't believe the NCAA should punish Penn State for what they have done, but as I said before, I think they should do a deep investigation for any other wrongdoing.

/end ramble
 


I didn't allege that NCAA rules were broken. I only stated that I believe there must be, and will be football penalties. I think these will be self imposed. Even if the NCAA does nothing, the conference can do something. If the conference, in their.collective wisdom, concludes that they don't like having a member school where football and its reputation has become more important than the protection of children, they can kick PSU out and replace then with Notre Dame.

IMHO, PSU fails to impose a football penalty at its own peril.
 

badgergopher said:
I didn't allege that NCAA rules were broken. I only stated that I believe there must be, and will be football penalties. I think these will be self imposed. Even if the NCAA does nothing, the conference can do something. If the conference, in their.collective wisdom, concludes that they don't like having a member school where football and its reputation has become more important than the protection of children, they can kick PSU out and replace then with Notre Dame.

IMHO, PSU fails to impose a football penalty at its own peril.
Click to expand...
So let me get the straight. You won't say any rules were broken but you still think punishment should be handed out? And if the NCAA doesn't do it then PSU should self punish? All because the conference will kick them out? Yea...no. The conference isn't going to kick them out. The B1G's reputation is in no way on the line. That's because the conference isn't in any way involved here. That's why no articles have been written calling for the B1G to step in or accusing the B1G of being complicit.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom