this may be of some local interest
PSU gets ltr from NCAA
Really? "Letter" was too hard to spell all the way out?
LAUGH OUT LOUD
Sorry, that's how we abbreviate it at work, habit I guess.
is work a kindergarden classroom?
just saw you're an osu fan, give my regards to the other professors in Columbus.
Ok, until you editted it, this was the lamest of all the jabs so far. But you totally redeemed yourself. I will pass along your regards.
Come on guys.
post is one that is shared with intent of poking poke fun at grammar while having its own grammatical miscues.
what you did there. You corrected your post. I'm too lazy to imbed the pelican photo though.
Edit fail: It's "kindergarten"
Edit response fail: It's "edited"
We all fail: For reading this
Lke the answr is ys. Wrds r lng.
Oh like this blog isn't famous for abbreviating and acronyming the crap out of everything. Besides I do think some of the post titles on this forum as too long.
We r jst givin u a hrd time.
Faq re: thrd ttls.
It's one thing to have an acronym for "You may remember me from such players as", it's another things to abbreviate a six letter word.
Some of the thread titles may be too long, but "PSU gets letter from NCAA" is not too long. That's two acronymns and three words, none of which are more than two syllables. That did not need shortening.
Too many ltrs ;)
Don't display a ton of institutional control when you have to get rid of the entire reporting structure from the head coach to the president of the university.
PS gts ltr frm NC
Damn dirty evil vowels . . . .
PSU does not produce revenue for the NCAA, nor does the B1G. The NCAA gets almost all its revenue from championship tournaments, and almost all of that is from running the basketball tournament.
The football revenues of individual universities do NOT go to the NCAA at all... This is a common but completely false assumption.
I am with you on this. I am consistently annoyed by the frequent comment that goes "The NCAA will not punish Institution X for its recent offenses because Institution X is a big name and it's all about the money."
These comments are never accompanied by any explanation of (i) whose money, (ii) in what amount, (iii) to whom the money is paid, (iv) how that money flow would be disrupted by NCAA sanctions, or (v) why the money associated with Institution X would not be replaced by new money associated with Institution Y in the event of NCAA sanctions pertaining to Institution X.
NCAA exists b/c U. presidents and ADs want it to. NCAA's priorities -- maximizing revenues from college sports and aggressive legal challenges to the rights of "student athletes" governed by the NCAA -- are those of the U. presidents themselves; otherwise, the schools could easily duplicate all the NCAA functions themselves. The NCAA is the embodiment of the financial and other desires of the "member (ie "controlling")" institutions; therefor it stands to reason that the NCAA does not have the power to make life truly difficult for any of them. All it can do is instruct them in the proper charades to act out for the TV cameras when bad publicity requires it.
What does that have to do with the (false) meme that PSU generates revenue for the NCAA??
PSU is at the point where they have:
2. A child development professor who raped young children
3. A geochem professor whose raping of children they covered up. He got busted after he went to Yale and Yale didn't cover for his rear.
Their worst one was regarding the child development professor. The prof was indicted in Maryland on 5 counts of child molestation. Yet Spanier told one victim he still didn't have the credible proof needed to open an internal probe on the prof. Maryland police had enough evidence to indict but it wasn't enough for Spanier. PSU is looking like a shoe-in for a LOIC at this point. Although I'm sure they're more worried about what the DoJ is going to do than the NCAA at this point.
I do want Sandusky to rot in a prison somewhere (well not exactly sit in prison, but I don't want to get into that here), Paterno didn't deserve to be in a position of trust, the president and AD didn't either, but I don't know how I feel about the NCAA making this an NCAA issue.
Well I think if you have a grad assistant reporting to the head coach, who sends him to the AD and VP of police operations, and still nothing happens for 10yrs, cops were never called, and it was not the first time it had happened == cover-up. And if they were covering up something like this, what else is there out there? It's a fair question and the NCAA has the right to get the answers.
I'm with you. However, I know from my job at least, I'm always told that I'm a representation of the company regardless of if I'm actually 'on the job'. That said, perhaps the NCAA is making this an issue because PSU turning a blind eye to alleged child molestation for a number of years is a poor representation of the NCAA. [Insert joke about NCAA being their own punchline for poor representation here].
I see what you're saying, but the NCAA didn't employ Spainer, Curley or Paterno. They already faced the harshest penalty their employer could level for their conduct. I think this would be more like a scandal in administration at a hospital and having the AMA hammer the hospital itself as if it was a medical issue. I just don't see the clear link between Sandusky's crimes, the coverup, and NCAA compliance.
The majority of NCAA violations are victimless. In the sense that "Oh Reggie Bush got 20k from an agent" or "The Newton family got a few hundred thousand" damage the competitive balance but do not hurt anyone.
If schools get punished for that but covering up an athletic staff member's child rape does not draw the wrath of the NCAA, then the NCAA is a joke. I think the NCAA President said it best awhile back. Basically the NCAA is going to let the police/FBI/DoJ/etc do their thing and then they'll hit PSU. Basically stay out of the way of law enforcement but PSU will play.
I'm honestly rooting to see the B10 take some kind of action against PSU as well. It would likely be symbolic, but still it would be nice to see.
But the NCAA is a body set up to oversee athletes. I don't think they exist to regulate an athletic department beyond making sure that each athlete is following their rules. Texas just recently settled a sexual harassment suit against their director of football operations (or something like that), so if that was handled improperly by the university administration, should the Texas football team be hit with scholarship reductions?
I think this opens the door for the NCAA stepping into a lot of issues where it doesn't belong.
I really have no issue with the NCAA saying: "Hey the DOJ just ran you on RICO charges and covering up child rape, you're banned from sports for awhile". The NCAA isn't acting as judge, jury, and executioner here. They're saying "Holy shit, you guys provoked almost every federal agency out there to investigate you. You're not allowed in our club anymore."
It's basically conduct unbecoming. Every intelligent organization in the world has something like that in their charter and uses it when they need to distance themselves from someone.
I think the procedures for kicking a school out of the NCAA are pretty different than finding 10.1 violations. If they want to kick PSU out of "our club" I think that's a much more clear discussion than this.
I didn't mean kicked out of the NCAA. More of something between the SMU death penalty and the USC sanctions.
Keep in mind the NCAA can also use the threat of the death penalty to make the PSU back away from the coverup. Make it clear that if PSU gets convicted of RICO charges or fights the DoJ probe, the NCAA will deliver a death penalty for conduct unbecoming. It gives PSU a really strong incentive to come clean with the feds and plea bargain. For all we know the Feds mentioned they'd love to see the NCAA put some additional heat on PSU. This could be the polite way of telling PSU: "Hey, come clean to the feds and we'll slap you with a bowl ban so we look like we did something and move on. Ride this thing down in flames, keep the terms 'college football' and 'child rape' joined together in the news cycle and we'll nuke you like we nuked SMU.".
I'm not aware of any NCAA bylaw that states the possibility for competitive penalties for "conduct unbecoming" from an athletic department. I'd have to think that PSU and the Big Ten would sue the shit out of the NCAA for what you suggest.
Further, they would have to find exactly what was "unbecoming". It looks like Paterno covered his legal responsibilities, so is the NCAA bar higher? Does it become an AD-wide issue where their women's volleyball team gets hit with a post-season ban for this?
11.1.1: Individuals employed by or associated with a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times so that intercollegiate athletics as a whole, their institutions and they, as individuals, represent the honor and dignity of fair play and the generally recognized high standards associated with wholesome competitive sports.
Sandusky broke the wholesome and dignity parts while raping kids as a PSU employee. The honesty and honor part were broken by any employee who failed to report this to the police. PSU can definitely be investigated on these charges right now. The atmosphere of wholesome competitive sports should definitely include reporting felonies to the police.
For section 10.1 (see: http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D110.pdf), unethical conduct is not limited to the examples provided. If you really need a bullet point like: "Covering up the rape of children in the locker room is unethical" there isn't anything I can do for you. Unless you want to argue child rape and its coverup is ethical, then 10.1 clearly applies.
Like you said below, we're going to have to agree to disagree, here. You make a reasonable, intelligent argument, but I still feel I'm right (and obviously you feel you're right).
There are a ton of things that the NCAA could start finding unethical about coaches and charging them with that have nothing to do with NCAA compliance, and that's what I see this turning into.
Agreed, if the NCAA takes action, where does it end? Is Pinkel not "wholesome" because of the DWI?
Geeze, some of you are dissecting this way too much. A top University covered up a fucking child rape case for several years!! Simple as that. Stop trying to find ways for the NCAA not to punish them.
discussion of the issues involved in the Penn State situation lacks perspective. I am of the belief that Penn State may in deed have its athletic program shut down for a period of time. Your mention of drunk driving, disorderly conduct, etc. is apples and oranges. The truth, the very sad sick truth, is that it truly appears that Penn State, the institution, was not only aware, but may have been to a certain degree harboring a serious, serious criminal, guilty of very serious crimes the likes of which the NCAA has yet to deal with, and thus has not protocol for. It is hard to believe we are seeing this take place, but we are. There is another shoe here, and I think it is a heavy one. True, this is not tat-gate, and it is not stretching time, it is not something where a competitive advantage was gained for a specific team or a specific program, but it was far deeper and more troublesome than any such infraction could be and evidenced an actual lack of institution control in the literal sense. This may be an act first, ask questions later issue for the NCAA.
It's a fine line, for sure.
I agree completely. Is the NCAA going to investigate if a coach is arested for domestic assault? Drunk driving? Disorderly conduct? Public urination? Where is the line? Don't get me wrong--if there is a line, covering up child rape is obviously over it--but once we say that there is a line, all of the public pressure will be to bring the line closer and closer to where the NCAA is involving themselves in what should be personnel issues.
At some point, a coach will do something very bad but not quite this bad, and there will be an outcry for the NCAA to investigate that as well. The line will be moved, and the NCAA will start involving themselves in ordinary criminal matters.
I mean, if universities are punished because players were overpaid for summer jobs, is it a bad thing to punish universities when their players are running around in ski masks beating the crap out of people?
Not to mention that in the examples you give, there's usually not a coverup. I think if the institution participates in hiding the crime, they should get hammered.
The problem is that the NCAA already can't enforce its typical rules (against recruiting violations, etc.) very well. It's stretched too thin. Trying to duplicate the work of law enforcement will leave it with few resources to carry out its mission.
I also think that NCAA policing of law enforcement issues is redundant and somewhat pointless. Who is going to care that they're facing NCAA sanctions when they're also facing 50 years in jail?
I'm confident that no one here is saying that Sandusky and others shouldn't be punished if guilty (as they appear to be). People are just saying that the NCAA isn't the institution to do that punishing, just as you wouldn't have a security guard try to track down a drug-smuggling ring.
at punishing Sandusky or individuals. It's aimed at punishing the institution for creating a culture that allowed there to be a coverup. I don't have a problem with the NCAA doing that.
Did you read the letter they sent? It specifies the "rules" they think PSU might have violated. They are tying it to NCAA rules, as they should.
I did. And on the second page, second paragraph, not one of those rules directly relates to the PSU scandal, strictly because the NCAA bylaws weren't written to punish sex offenders, which is what I've been saying above.
The NCAA has a loophole/catchall there. In 10.1 they define, but do not limit themselves to the unethical behaviors they define (11 is the same but for athletic staff). I'm pretty sure the Universities will be fine with extending that definition to child rape. Additionally 19 is the general moral catchall.
The whole thing here is they're not investigating child rape. That's for the police. The NCAA is investigating the fact that a member institution structured itself to perform coverups of illegal activities. The NCAA isn't about to be up in anyone's business for their coach getting a DWI or anything. They're not saying "Hey coach so and so has a bunch of unpaid parking tickets so you get sanctions now". They're saying "We have rules that you as an institution need to act morally and ethically. You appear to have covered up illegal activities and thus you have broken those rules.". Your coach getting a DWI is between you and local law enforcement. It's only when you hide the activities in a systematic manner that you draw fire from the NCAA.
Rape -> coverup (although legal duties possibly satisfied, so the NCAA's definition of coverup) -> recruiting restrictions.
If you read 126.96.36.199, they specifically reference NCAA compliance. 11.01.1 uses the words "sportsmanship", "fair play", "wholesome competitive sports". Their rules weren't written to enforce the moral standards of employees beyond their work with the NCAA, and that entire paragraph is a ridiculous stretch to apply here, IMO.
You left out the preceding paragraph which sets the framework. In it, it says you gotta be honest, etc. even outside of the playing field.
We'll just have to agree to disagree. It's kind of pointless in that the NCAA lawyers vs the PSU lawyers are going to decide if 10 and 11 apply here or not.
But they were written to punish lying and deceit by member institutions and their officers. That is pretty clearly spelled out, and it is also clearly spelled out that this applies to contexts outside of the playing field, as long as it relates in some way to the "broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."
Unless you can successfully argue that multiple rapes of young boys who are guests of the PSU athletics department, while on campus and in PSU athletics facilities, followed by senior AD officials lying about those events, is not associated with the "broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program" the NCAA has a legitimate role here.
Each of these is written and prefaced with the idea of NCAA compliance, not every facet of life. How an organization tasked with "monitoring amateur athletics" or whatever the exact wording on their mission statement is can suddenly be punishing employees for not taking the initiative to go to the police is where i get lost. Their own bylaw even says that it's Paterno's job to "monitor compliance", which has nothing to do with this case at all.
Their argument on that count has to go like this: "Paterno should have known that his assistant failing to notify police was an NCAA ethical violation, so his continued conduct then accounts for another ethical violation" when there is nothing in the NCAA rulebook to state what that violation could be. That, to me, is senseless.
Following it through, how far are you willing to let NCAA violations creep into life outside NCAA compliance?
You didn't address the most important part. Are you arguing that multiple rapes of young boys who were guests of the PSU AD, in PSU athletic facilities, that were then covered up by senior PSU AD officials is not part of the "broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program?"
When the athletics program facilitiates these crimes and covers them up, it is a compliance issue. The NCAA has defined compliance that way. You might not like that they have defined compliance in that way, but they have.
They mention "multiple cases" where they have brought this article against athletic departments in the past, but they don't mention any case where the particulars are even close to this one. I can see where they extend compliance using this definition to discourage envelopes of cash at recruiting events, or an assault from a player or coach, but I would be very interested to see if it has ever been applied to a case not involving a current athlete or coach.
My bet is that the NCAA has never filed a case like this before, so it's quite possible that is not the way they define compliance, and are looking for some good will in this case, stretching the rules to make them fit this incident.
The head coach and AD were "current" at the time of the incedents, as was the assistant coach at the time of the first alleged assault.
Whatever the NCAA chooses to do, I hope they allow the current PSU players to transfer without penalty like they did at USC.
It's not the players' fault this happened but the university should be punished if the alleged crimes are found to be true. Ironically, this could end up being how Bolden actually gets to transfer after Paterno denied his request last January.
I find the timing odd. It seems like the Penn State administration has more pressing issues than to respond to the NCAA by mid December. I'd much rather see them getting to the bottom of all the legal issues first. The facts will come out in due time, at which point, the NCAA can do whatever it wants.
This just seems like the NCAA felt pressure to do something and do it soon.
This Bylaw 19.01.2 seems very difficult to enforce
Agreed as to the timing. I find it odd that they claim to not want to interfere with the legal process, yet demand answers which could have a substantial impact on the legal process by the middle of December.
The NCAA is reaching a bit, but this situation is so far beyond the bounds of what I think was ever considered when the by-laws were written that they felt compelled to shoehorn it into something under the code.
First, there is no way in hell that PSU is going to provide information to the NCAA that might potentially impact the pending criminal cases or expected lawsuits. And that is, more or less, exactly the type of information the NCAA has asked PSU to provide.
Second, if the NCAA gets involved here, it sets a precedent. It will then have to get involved in every other potentially serious criminal situation. For example, they will need to investigate the ND situation where the female student accused a player of sexual assault and shortly thereafter committed suicide. Did ND investigate that properly? Did they cover anything up? What about all of the other situations in which athletes, coaches or administrators are charged with serious criminal activity every year? If a HC is charged with domestic abuse, does the NCAA launch an investigation? How about a player? AD? President? Are all schools properly handling criminal allegations against athletes, coaches and administrators or is it possible some are systematically covering them up?
We have law enforcement agencies and courts whose job it is to handle exactly this type of situation. The NCAA adds nothing by getting involved. In fact, the NCAA barely does a competent job investigating and enforcing its own rules. The last thing the NCAA should be doing is running around trying to investigate and enforce potential violations of criminal law.
In other PSU news, Mike McQueary seems to have participated in charity events benefitting Second Mile . . . after walking in on the alleged rape in the showers.
(Edit: not sure why the link won't show up in blue, but if you copy and paste it, it works.)
Thanks for posting, jmb. The saying has been pounded into the ground, but you really could not make this stuff up. I was dumbfounded the McQueary could walk the same halls as the child molester he barged in on, only to find out that he was doing work WITH him. Granted, McQueary's work benefitted underprivileged children, but there are hundreds of other great charities that benefit children that he could have spent his time on! Crazy. Talk about selling one's soul to the devil.
This simply can't be so. Remember, McQuery not only stopped the rape that night he also immediately went to the police. The fact that this is in conflict with his Grand Jury testimony and the police have no record of this shouldn't matter.
After all - he wrote it in an email to his friend so it MUST be true.......
You forgot - he wrote it in an email just a few days ago, not when it all went down. And since we all know that his memory is spotless and it definitely happened as he remembers it 10 years later, its definitely true. I don't see anything wrong with him hanging out with Sandusky after giving him a beatdown and referring him to the cops. They must have shaken hands and made up.
Even given the circumstances of this awful affair, that is just bizarre...I'm very glad not to be able to imagine what was going through his head while he was at those functions.
"So, yeah, you should definitely be our next coach here at PSU, Coach ____. Just, uh, couple of things. 1. We don't have an AD yet, just an interim, so I can't tell you who your boss will be. And you won't be his hand-picked guy, so like, try not to lose any games. 2. We don't have a President of the University, just an interim, so, like, I can't tell you what direction the program will take over time. 3. Uh, there's an NCAA investigation, and we have no idea how long it'll take -- probably years, if they're going to wait out criminal and maybe civil lawsuits -- and, if they decide to take acction, oh it'll probably be the single worst punishment ever handed out. Maybe, who knows.
"But, you know, there's an upsiiiiii.... hey, where'd you go?"
The letter (er, ltr) does contain the dreaded "institutional control" question...
"Penn State's exercise of institutional control over its intercollegiate athletics programs" with regard to Jerry Sandusky...
I think of the NCAA as existing at least nominally to protect athletes. No athletes that we know of were harmed here. I realize that this is a little like saying, "I may be a murderer, but I never once cheated at Monopoly," but that's where people are coming from. I've never seen the NCAA say, "We're going to hit you for general bad behavior."
has ZERO relevance because this isn't an athletics issue. People keep saying this like it's some obvious point.
The NCAA seems to disagree with you.
Penn State is no longer a Big Ten caliber institution. Their football program is eff'd. Their basketball program's always sucked, and their academics could potentially take a major hit. But most importantly, I do not want UofM associated with a school that condoned and enabled a child rapist for 13+ years (starting in AT LEAST 1998).
11 teams does not work. Besides, do you not believe in redemption? There is also the sticky matter of replacing a historically strong program and institution with one of equal caliber.
I know waxing self-righteously without considering the very real difficulties of aisny particular issue is the favored past time of Internet message board denizens, but it is not a laudable trait to have.
They will be replacing a program that will be best known for condoning and enabling a child rapist. It will not be difficult to find a stronger program to replace them. Pitt would be a great replacement. If they're no longer interested, then going to 11 teams is an improvement over keeping PSU. You may be too young to remember, but for a couple decades the Big Ten was financially the strongest conference as a 11 member conference.
.....and then McQueary is revealed to have done work for the Second Mile Foundation? Did walking in on...that....create a dilemma between doing the right thing and an upcoming speaking engagement, Mike? Remind me to burn PSU letters if my kids get them when they get to high school.
By the way, here's the full transcript of the Sandusky interview by Costas. There's a couple of jaw-droppers in there that weren't aired the first time around:
Well -- you might think that. I don't know. (LAUGHS) In terms of -- my relationship with so many, many young people. I would-- I would guess that there are many young people who would come forward. Many more young people who would come forward and say that my methods and-- and what I had done for them made a very positive impact on their life. And I didn't go around seeking out every young person for sexual needs that I've helped. There are many that I didn't have-- I hardly had any contact with who I have helped in many, many ways."
The fact that he really wasn't emotional and said things such as these, even if it didn't make the air, is extremely disturbing.