How can they do anything? The President already said he was willing to accept it. The alternative was going to be the death penalty if he didn't accept these terms.
These sanctions happened based on a report from a guy the BOT hired to make.
How can they do anything? The President already said he was willing to accept it. The alternative was going to be the death penalty if he didn't accept these terms.
These sanctions happened based on a report from a guy the BOT hired to make.
Some might say the death penalty is better than these terms.
At least with a 1 year death penalty you can slap a redshirt on all the players who can take one.
Also, saying this is NOT a Penn State scandal, or Penn State football scandal, is completely dilusional on that guys part.
How is it neither when it involves the Penn State Athletic Director, Ex. VP, President, Head Football Coach, AND former Defensive Coordinator who was granted emeritus status AFTER the initial investigation, and kept it up until he was arrested?
When rapes happen inside of Penn State facilities by a man being paid by Penn State, it is a Penn State scandal and problem. When it is attempted to be covered up by the Athletic Director, Head Coach, along with the VP and President, to preserve the image of the university and football program, it becomes a Penn State and Penn State football scandal.
I couldn't believe what I was hearing either:
"What have we learned? First, this is not a Penn State scandal. Second, this was not a Penn State football scandal. Third, this was certainly not a Joe Paterno scandal. To imply or suggest that Joe Paterno would jeopardize the well being of a child to protect a football program tells us you did not know this man."
REALLY? In what alternate, bizarro universe? As you said, when boys are raped by an assistant football coach, on campus, and in the football building, and when a football GA notifies the head coach who does next to nothing about it for more than a decade, and the most senior university officials willingly look away--regardless of their motives--and when that same assistant head coach is provided near complete access to every aspect of the program and the university YEARS after allegations first surface, that is the very definition of a "Penn State scandal," a "Penn State football scandal," and, in no small part, a "Joe Paterno scandal."
Do you think maybe, just maybe, it's possible that YOU did not know this man? That NONE OF US truly knew this man? I'm sure JoPa would say, "actions speak louder than words." And his certainly do now.
This type of response to this whole thing is such bullshit. The fact that this type of reaction represents not a miniscule but a very prominent portion of the PSU community makes me glad the NCAA burned that place to the ground. F 'EM.
was that the other option was a four year death sentence. A one year sentence is one thing, but four would be much worse. Not only for the school, but for the local merchants that survive on money made off of home football games.
Wow, didn't know that. Then you gotta take what the NCAA gives you in this case.
Except Emmert said that it would be the Death Penalty for more than one season, as well as scholarship reductions, etc. He was very clear that it would not be just the death penalty.
Is there a limit of only one year for the death penalty?
The limit for the "repeat violator" clause is 2 years I believe. I think this is separate from the normal means of handing out punishment though.
If the President didn't have legal authority to enter into the contract with the NCAA, then wouldn't it be null and void?
The NCAA is basically one giant middle man with a very hungry mouth to feed. If they were serious about the victims, they would take that fine and split it up between them. That would have been the end of the punishment, and the victims would then be able to move toward closure and a higher degree of healing without having to be reminded of it every day for the next ten years or so.
Instead, the NCAA went for the massive PR shot. They are going to create one or more "foundations" that burn up most of the money in "administrative costs." They have guaranteed that every victim will be reminded of it every time he looks at a sports section for however long it takes the program to bounce back.
The NCAA gets to pound its collective chest and tell everyone how much they "care." Really, though, in the end, the victims are getting absolutely nothing.
Consequently, I hope PSU sues the NCAA. Not so that they can "win," but so that the student-athlete can win. Because eventually, the NCAA will be exposed for the way it ruthlessly exploits "student-athletes," making millions of dollars off of them, but doesn't even allow them to accept a free pizza.
If the NCAA has expose its inner workings to the scrutiny of a lawsuit, by an entity that can afford all of the money it will take to actually move it forward and not get buried by the legal obfuscation that will inevitably come as a response, those players are eventually going to be allowed to accept the money they command on the free market, just like everybody else in every other profession.
Umm.. they're taking the fine and donating it to charities that are specifically geared towards this type of thing. So, even better than making a few dozen people stinking rich...
I guess the BOT is bound and determined to find a way to make this even worse for PSU. Wow.
It's arguable that the BoT has a duty to make this inquiry, as awful as the underlying crime is. My understanding of their role is that they have a duty to protect the interests of the citizens of the State of Pennsylvania, and prevent the universities' administrations from making commitments that are contrary to the interests of the citizens of the state. From the BoT's perspective, they are likely concerned about allowing Erickson to set a precedent whereby the president of a public university makes substantial agreements without BoT approval.
Whether PSU would be better off just swallowing this bitter pill (of the PSU administration's own making) or fighting the proposed sanctions is a fair question. And I agree that this just prolongs the sh*tshow in the near term. But if I were a trustee, I may well feel my hands are tied (and be royally pissed at Erickson being so panicked and/or presumptuous).
Trustees are politicians, and to understand why politicians do what they do, you have to understand their incentives. Nine of Penn State's trustees, including Lubrano, are elected by PSU alumni. These trustees know that a whole lot of alumni will be single-issue voters over these next few years, and the most fired up of them will be those pissed off by how Penn State has been treated.
Lubrano seems especially crazy. Every time I hear him speak, I keep thinking of this scene from the Dead Zone:
I'm not disagreeing with you. I just think that it benefits them to "look like a bunch of delusional football fans."
It should say to understand why anyone does anything, not just politicians, you have to look at incentives.
Possibly true, though it's awfully hard to explain why I'm posting on MGoBlog right now using any kind of incentives argument.
THis is all about the upcoming elections and placating alumni who apparently feel it was "similar to 9/11" or some variation on that.
Changing the culture of thick-headed people never goes smoothly.
except that he spelled his name "Petr."
...back when I was posting BEFORE the MGGoBoard...when I would try to post "first" everytime Brian uploaded new content on the front page. Back when it was only Brian writing here.
So, I guess it's been a while:
It is derived from an argument I had with my brother about the correct spelling. It is a reminder of how I love winning arguments.
When the story broke I was surprised that Erickson felt he had the authority to agree to accept the NCAA sanctions. It seems that most public schools require board approval for relatively minor undertakings (e.g., expanding or updating training facilities). Erickson, seemingly acting on his own, made one of the biggest decisions in PSU history. It seems fair for the Board of Trustees to look into Erickson's authority to bind the university.
"It's really simple: I am frankly outraged as a member of the board of trustees that the university entered into a consent agreement without discussing it with the Board in advance of signing," trustee Anthony Lubrano told USA TODAY Sports on Monday after the NCAA sanctions were announced. "If I'm going to be held accountable, I feel like I should've been part of that process," Lubrano added. "I think it's fair to say that a number of board members are upset."
It certainly looked like Erickson had a Home Alone panicked response to the NCAA's ultimatum from the outside.
Anyway, I think the OP's correct - this situation could somehow become even messier than it already is. Yeesh!
Which is why I'm going to go out on a limb here and posit that key members of the BOT knew about the consent agreement and Erickson's acquiesence.
Yeah, it could get messy. From what I understand, the Board wasn't informed of the agreement and alot of them are upset over this.
They should be upset about not being notified. If they decide they are upset about the sanctions, then it will end very ugly.
Don't disagree, but I think that's pretty much a foregone conclusion, regardless of whether they are upset.
I don't get it. If they weren't informed about it, what was the emergeny meeting over the weekend about, which ultimately ended in removal of Paterno's statue? At the time everyone said they were discussing how to avoid harsher sanctions from NCAA, like a four-year death penalty.
so say the BOT really decide they don't agree with all this, can they back out of the agreement?
They probably can't back out of the bowl ban or the scholarship limits, but I'm guessing the President doesn't have the authority to cut a $12,000,000 check to the NCAA each of the next five years without the board's approval.
If the board refuses to give him the authority to pay the fine, or if they specifically forbid him from paying the fine, it could get even uglier between the NCAA and Penn State.
The 60 million is designated for child abuse victims and programs. That would be a major PR disaster if they tried to get out of that.
Thinking this through a little more...If the PSU Board of Trustees tries to nullify the consent agreement in court, which maybe they could do, the NCAA would simply tell the Board of Trustees that they have 72 hours to either (1) ratify the consent agreement or (2) allow NCAA investigators access to all University records that Freeh had access to, and all other athletic department records over the last 15 years on top of that, so the NCAA infractions committee can make a decision on their punishment.
The Board of Trustees can't make this any better for Penn State football, but they can make it much, much worse.
Yeah - and all that will do is delay the penalties, but they'll still have kids transferring, and more importantly, recruits not wanting to come play for them. The only thing worse than 4 classes of 15 kids, is a shitty recruiting class, and then 4 classes of 15 kids.
Actually, that's kind of what they have now. So instead they'd have 2 shitty recruiting classes, and then 4 classes of 15 kids. So it would just prolong the suck.
more at 11.
I can see it now. Maybe its time to cut them loose from the Big Ten.
That'd make them look spectacular. The one penalty everyone applauds the NCAA for is the one the Board will fight. The one that goes toward child abuse victims. Way to be, Penn State!
I'd guess the agreement with the NCAA is impossible to back out of given the circumstances. The school's president probably didn't have the authority to commit the school to a $60M payout, or any of the other sanctions, without receiving Board of Trustees approval. If I were on the Board, I'd be pretty pissed too. Frankly, I'd be weighing the shitstorm that would come from firing the guy against not having to deal with someone who thinks it's okay to sign away a huge amount of cash without asking anyone's permission. That said, they'll ultimately accept the punishment because the alternative might be putting a padlock on Beaver Stadium for a while.
The NCAA did a terrible job of selling its rapid decision. They should have said PSU was attempting to gain a competitive advantage by avoiding the scandal, which is covered by its bylaws, and that the Freeh report was more than sufficient to satisfy the standard investigation conducted by schools charged with rules violations. They also could have actually talked to the Board a few minutes before the press conference to get their (reluctant) approval.
it says that Erickson consulted with the chairwoman of the board and outside council to see if he had that authority. He likely does. The BOT has a few ex-athletes on it, and they want to defend JoePa until the end of time. That's all this is.
Fair enough, but it was one of the biggest moments in the school history. Regardless of his technical level of authority, he should have talked to them. The NCAA is/was out for blood, but they would have given Erickson time to organize a teleconference to inform his university's Board. Again, I'd be really pissed if I were a board member and found out about the punishment on TV. Regardless of the penalties directly related to football, $60M is a lot of money to commit for any school
According to rumor central at the CiC (which has been running slightly above average in accuracy these days) this would be suicidal by the board to fight. The Presidents/Chancellors have already met and if PSU makes a fuss about this they're gone. Supposedly that was the deal for PSU remaining in the conference, that they shut up and take whatever the NCAA dishes out. That's why we had our announcement out hours after the NCAA's and Erickson made those back to the wall comments. The other B1G Presidents signed off with the NCAA and made it clear they'd support Emmert over PSU.
If the BoT fights this, they're gone from the conference and in turn that likely triggers their expulsion from other academic groups. In turn that leaves PSU sitting there all by itself when the Department of Education shows up to discuss Clery Act violations.
Basically the threat was if you take this to court and turn this into a multiyear bitchfest, we're booting you rather than be dragged down with you. Plus we boot them and no one is going to risk the NCAA's wrath by scheduling them/letting them in. The ACC already has 99 problems with Miami, they don't need PSU. So football dies eitherway.
Assuming the BoT is intelligent, this is just to appease the angry alumni base and look like they're doing something.
I think PSU knows they are getting expelled if they fight the penalties. There are trustees who need to put on a show and there are probably a few too dumb to comprehend what's going on.
We have to protect our phoney baloney jobs here, gentlemen! We must do something about this immediately! Immediately! Immediately! Harrumph! Harrumph! Harrumph!
That the ACC has got 99 problems, but PSU ain't one?
If the BOT can reopen the mess, then surely the Big 10 can do the same thing. Perhaps they didn't reach the correct decision the first time around.
"Death... by bunga bunga!"
i heard it as "unga bunga", but you know...
and now that i think of it, given the context, probably not the best reference..
But we get points for "ironic coincidence." You assuredly got points for even knowing the joke.
notetoself is right but but that is one funny joke. The Master - Gilbert Gottfried- tells it best.
Spanier is working with the federal government on issues of national security, you say? Well, at least we know he knows how to keep a secret.
Somehow this doesn't surprise me. The one leader at PSU who seems to have any sense at all, and they turn on him. What is amusing, is that many of the fans are calling for a new leader, one with stones (to put it politely), meaning one that will acquiese to the rabid fan base.
Yeah, that's what they need . . .
On Blue White Illustrated, PSU fans are now concluding that Michigan is actually responsible for PSU's mess:
The OP on that one has seriously gone insane. I suppose it's understandable but he is REALLY out there.
A couple of them are whacked out. Michigan is scared of Penn State and jealous of the great experiment? Wow!
is bat-shit crazy an appropriate clinical term? I've tried other descriptions for some of these people, but they all fall a bit short.
May include it, we'll have to see. Normally my notes on bat shit crazy patients are filled with as many direct quotes as possible, for the enjoyment of the next clinician to read. Normally we don't label it, we just let the quotes speak for themselves
Most PSU fans on the internet are insane but BWI has always been the worst of the worst. That board has been a laughing stock for over a decade now. According to them, everything that's ever gone wrong in history is Michigan's fault. All losses, all penalties, even stuff that happened before they joined the conference was Michigan's fault.
Yeah. Most PSU fans seemed to be all for giving Curley, Schultz, then Spanier the boot and wanting Sandusky's head. But once Joe started getting into the muck is when they started becoming insane.
Here's another gem:
The Penn State dude has an interesting theory. It needs work. Many times I saw Bo checking on the players studying at night in West Quad when I was a student. He suspended key players from big games for skipping class. I will put Bo's ethics up against any so called "grand experiment." Oh yeah, he managed to do all of that without enabling any serial child rapists.
Nothing of significance will come out of this. I'm sure there are a few BoT members p-o'd, but at most they will chew out Erickson or formally repremand him. Doubtfull they fire him, since they just freakin' hired him.
It will appease some of the nut-ball fringe alumni outrage if a few of the BoTs publicly state their disagreement with the harshness of the penalties.
No formal withdrawl from the consent agreement will happen, because that will mean DEATH not only for football, but the entire AD and the academic side will be significantly affected as well.
""If I'm going to be held accountable, I feel like I should've been part of that process," Lubrano added. "I think it's fair to say that a number of board members are upset.""
I find it interesting that someone from a Board Of Trustees that demanded "continuity" in its leadership when faced with the question that it should possibly resign en masse after the publication of the Freeh Report is now saying that he wanted to be part of the "process". On several occasions during the years when the abuse was taking place, this same board rubber stamped decisions and actively avoided being "part of the process".
I have to believe that censure by the conference basically means that lodging a formal complaint would move Penn State a step closer to the door, if you will, especially now that everything has been made public in the way of sanctions. This seems like disingenuous bluster, and it is far too late.
I hope they fight it and get the four year death penalty. The most powerful people at PSU didn't report rape of children for 14 years. Joe PA continued to let Sandusky bring kids from the 2nd mile to football banquets and probably knew they were getting raped later that night. The alumni and fans at PSU make me vomit. Fuck you Penn State!
And the former QB that walked in on Sandusky raping a child and didn't call 911 or stop it is a bitch. He is still a coach too for them. What kind of man calls their daddy instead of taking action? What a piece of scum he is too.
From what this article (http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8199905/penn-state-nittany-lions-...) says Penn State got lucky with the sanctions. The NCAA wanted to impose a 4 year death penalty on them. That would have absolutely eviscerated their program, and Erickson might have saved the program (somewhat).
If the NCAA truly wanted to impose a 4 year death penalty, they certainly could have. They used that threat to get it over with quickly, but I'd be surprised if this wasn't the penalty most of them wanted.
So if the PSU BOT end up not accepting these penalties, does that open it back up for the 4 year death penalty? If so, holy shit.
PSU BoT needs to STFU.
Apparently the NCAA was ready to obliterate PSU football off the face of the earth, complete with salting of Beaver Stadium turf.
FWIW, hopefully the newfound cajones of the NCAA will result in the wrath of God being brought down upon Miami (YTM) for strippers and hos, and UNC for their diffuse academic fraud. Not holding my breath, however.
There are some seriously delusional folks on that board. Blaming Michigan and OSU for not sticking up for them. Must be sitting in mom's basement covered in aluminum foil.
Remember how upset we were about the Michigan sanctions for a few minutes of stretching? Well, Michigan got ahead of that, put everything out there, and came totally clean--not that things were very dirty. That forthcoming approach makes me even prouder to be a Wolverine, especially after watching the ohio folks dissemble over the tattoo situation, and now watching the PSU people turn a tragedy into a farce. If anyone needed more proof that it is always best to come clean initially, we have it in these two situations.
The Penn State BoD and fans are showing that the priorities of Penn State and there fans are not to the standard of the Big Ten conference. The fans sound like complete idiots and have no understanding of footballs place in this situation or society. Do they honestly think that everything was done properly and that the University has no culpability for the actions of there employees in the work place? The football facilities are the work place for these employees. This is bigger than there football program and I believe they should be removed from the Big Ten now.
Penn State football's culture of enablement is long standing and this is why the B1G needs to move on with ND or another option.
The fact is their demands speak, sadly, of a school whose moral and ethical compass is lost. Penn State is not the victim here.
I think the BOT had to do this and that it is one of the few reasonable actions that have been taken. Maybe the sanctions handed out were reasonable, but there is also a reasonable argument to be made that they are excessive, and that argument never received a hearing. Due process seems to be a fundamental part of the NCAA's process -- not to mention the nation's judicial system -- and to have been completely ignored in this case. Has the association ever had a case resolved this quickly without the culprits having a chance to offer a defense or respond to allegations? And Emmert threatened to kill the program if PSU didn't go along. Where does it say that he can do that?
Emmert should have recognized that not only was he taking the NCAA outside it's procedures, that by demanding Erickson accept the penalties without checking with the BOT he was asking PSU to do the same thing. What if Sandusky's attorney, under threat from prosecutors, had accepted a life sentence for Sandusky the day after his arrest, without asking him. People would recognize that you can't do that. You need to follow the proper steps and let the process work. And PSU should have a chance to consider whether they want to argue for a lesser penalty.
I disagree entirely, but you shouldn't be negged for stating a contradictory opinion to the prevailing one, especially when you articulated clearly.
Now, about your post: The problem is twofold
1) The situation: it seems absolutely absurd to lump something like selling merchandise for free tatoos together with enabling the serial rape of children. Given that the NCAA had to do something, considering this atrocity was centered around football concerns, they had to do it in a way that wouldn't conflate its moral role with its technical governance role. The rape of children is not a "technical governance" role. I think it would be appalling if Penn State and USC were charged with the same NCAA infraction. The Penn State situation is qualitatively different than any other situation that's gone before it
2) Timetable. The NCAA needed to get this done NOW. In another month, the season will be just about started, and by that it's too late to impose any real penalties with immediate effect. Their options were to either (a) use unconventional channels or (b) delay the punishments to such an extent that they're too far removed from the wrongdoing.
I hope they realize that the President's consent saved them from a multi-year death penalty. Go ahead, reverse the consent decree and let the NCAA buttfuck them with the death penalty for being fucking stupid.
ima have to log into the pc to pos you. a little contrition goes a long way and I'm glad the current president is capable of showing it.
Buttfuck? It's still too soon.
They are f'n everything up. Hey morons, shut the f up, say sorry and work on your program. The sooner Joe is dead to you, well the sooner you have a slight chant with a recruit.
Kicking and screaming it is. Get the hypodermic.
a few minutes ago - they're leaving it alone.
This is a good idea for Penn State.
They had to know that their Board of Trustees screwing with the NCAA would lead to only one end:
Edit - I see that the PSU BOT backed down.
...the more deserved these sanctions feel.
The moral crisis at PSU stemmed from the powers that were valuing football and the image of the football team over the health and well-being of defenseless children. Yokels on the Internet, okay, but when trustees are mouthing the same enabling bulls***, then it shows there are more than just 4 decision-makers who need to be taught a lesson.
The federal Department of Education has asked for records for the past 14 years, which is far more than they usually request. The Cleary Act requires schools keep the past 7 years, and the article I read had this interesting nugget in it.
"Carter said he met with considerable resistance from Penn State before it finally disclosed 13 sexual offenses on campus in 2002. Its initial report showed zero."
If tihs is the case, then it goes far beyond Sandusky, and to a culture of shielding anything is wrong, more akin to the mayor in Jaws, who can't tell anyone of the shark or else they won't come to the beach.
to that article?
I thought I posted the link, posted it here. Thanks for asking.
I spoke with a former PSU staffer (actually an OSU alumnus) last night at the pub (I am in central PA so this isn't that much of coincidence). He told me two stories about the culture of shielding there.
1) Professor is struck by a drunk driving student on campus. Said driver is connected to the administration. Professor makes a stink when nothing is done to the driver. Professor asked to leave after the semester. Drunk driver never prosecuted.
2) Different professor beaten by a member of the practice squad. Campus police tell the professor, "we'll handle it." Nothing happens. When professor makes a stink, he is asked to leave after the semester.
Now this may be through disgruntled ex-employee/Buckeye lenses, I don't know. He was a rational man, Army vet. Of course he had to bring up tatgate and hate on the NCAA, which was to be expected, coming from a buckeye, but he had no reason to lie, other than feeling the need for attention-but we had been talking for an hour so that doesn't seem likely. Also, it fits in nicely with what a female PSU alumnus told me a few weeks ago-that many of the women on campus live in fear of the football team. Too many unprosecuted, uninvestigated assaults.