At least four Penn State Board of Trustees members intend to file an appeal Monday with the NCAA over sanctions levied against the university after the Jerry Sandusky child sex-abuse scandal because they say the NCAA did not give the school due process.
PSU Trustees say they are appealing NCAA sanctions
That seems ill-advised
That seems like an understatement
Hopefully the Big 10 boots them so we don't have to hear about it on the board anymore.
I'm so sick of hearing about them.
They need to just take their licks, shut up, and go sit in the corner awhile.
Haha joke's on you if you think people will stop posting it on the board if PSU was kicked out of B10
and booted from the Big Ten. Im tired of fu&king around with these guys. Everyone in power covered up for a child rapest. Take your punishment like a man or face harsher penalties.
I agree 100%.
I love all of the posturing on the part of Penn State fans.
"There's nothing in the NCAA rules that addresses this! They're making it up as they go along. It's bullshit! We are so going to sue the NCAA! Waaaaaah!"
"Aside from being incorrect on this matter young Paternolyte, assuming this were indeed the case, the reason the NCAA would have no rules on this matter is simple. When the NCAA created it's various rules with regard to the potential infractions a school could commit, no one in their wildest imagination could ever have possibly conceived that a single university could be this fucked up or morally bankrupt. Thank you, and enjoy a decade of football hell."
They are flirting with the possibilty of getting themselves booted from the NCAA if they keep this up.
So if they do it to themselves is it the death penalty or suicide?
Seriously, however, given all that O'Brien has done to hold that team together, this could send players running.
Good call BoT, drag on the process as long as you possibly can. I think the decision was pretty harsh, but an appeal implies that the NCAA doesn't have the story right. You can't just appeal because you think it's unfair (right?). Do they really think they have a chance here? Seems to me all the facts are out there.
We will see how the NCAA handles this now that practice has started.
I think the appeal has legs if only because the NCAA went out of their way to ignore their own rules in order to apply the punishment.
Did you read the excellent piece on ESPN that was posted here last Friday?
As pointed out in the piece, there was strong sentiment by many university presidents and other parties to shut down the football program for several years. In lieu of that, an agreement was reached. No one made Penn State sign the agreement; they did so because they believed the sanctions were better than what they MIGHT have faced had the process gone forward as is the usual case with NCAA investigations. They settled the case.
It is interesting that there is a lack of unanymity among board members, at least so far. There are also questions being raised about whether the acting president of Penn State had authority to sign an agreement.
The school's governance is beyond FUBAR.
Your last two paragraphs are 100% on the money.
It may be that these four trustees are simply posturing for whatever reason--so they can say they never favored the deal, PSU was treated unfairly etc.
Is it really considered settlement of a case when you are told agree to this or you get the death penalty instead? It is a fact, not a debateable point, that the NCAA went outside of their own written and established procedures in giving this punishment. Those procedures always involve NCAA investigators and take up to a year or more. Now, that may be justified in this unique case, I'm not arguing the punishment really. The NCAA did ignore their own due process --because they considered the Freeh report more thorough then they could have done--but the fact is they did ignore it. That process also involves appeal.
Legally, the NCAA didn't give anything. PSU and the NCAA came to an agreement voluntarily in which PSU agreed to a level of punishment and the NCAA agreed to enforce and monitor that level of punishment.
No due process was ignored. PSU always had the option of not signing the consent document and either withdrawing from the NCAA or going through the normall infractions process. PSU, with full capability of council, waived their right to due process and plea bargained.
Well, I think the question is whether the President = PSU.
Seems like the BOT has lost institutional control of the interim president.
To me it seems like the BOT has lost institutional control of its own members.
Some things you don't do as a member of a board:
- take intraboard disputes public after a decision has been reached
- speak on behalf of the board or the institution
- file a lawsuit on behalf of the board or the institution
#1 or #2 gets you censured--#3 is so far out there that I can't quite get my head around the possibility that it's happening, but it should get you removed from the board. Not sure what the PSU by-laws have to say regarding removal of board members who fail to live up to the requirements of the position, but I'm sure there's a procedure in there somewhere.
Agreed. No matter how you slice it, PSU's governance is a tire fire.
Part of the problem has to be that the BOT is a sinecure, not a real governance position. Michigan has 8 members on the Board of Regents. PSU has *32* members on their BOT.
That's not a governing body, it's a cocktail party, and a sloppy one at that.
In State College, #3 makes you a hero. Forget athletics; their accreditation should be pulled if they can't get their shit in order, and soon.
I would agree that there would be a due process issue based upon just that, BUT the university officials who are legally authorized to make decisions on behalf of the university made the decisions and reached an agreement with the NCAA (much like a plea deal). I think a due process challenge is ill advised and won't go anywhere because what we really have here is a different type if suit entirely: one between the university president and the president of the board of trustees to determine whether they had the authority to enter into the consent decree without full board approval.
and determine if it agrees to abide by the sanctions the school president accepted from the NCAA. Except, it already did that on July 25 and stood behind the president. I guess they can just keep voting on it until trustees stop filing lawsuits and sending letters. Insanity.
The BoT did accept them. Erickson went before them and basically made it clear it was this or a multiyear death penalty.
This is just 4 individuals on the Board who are trying a new avenue after failing to get the Board to reject the penalties. This is grandstanding for reelection and won't go anywhere since four trustees lack any kind of legal standing to do something on the University's behalf. You need the board to authorize them to act as reps or the President to do it. It's like how four Congressmen can't just go and sue someone on behalf of the entire United States.
Basically there were Board elections between the scandal breaking and now. Multiple folks were elected on the grounds of "We must defend JoePa's legacy." Seriousily that was basically their platform. It is those people who are doing this.
I believe you are talking about ultra vires, someone acting beyond the scope of their authority (law school was quite some time ago). Assuming that to be the case, is there any basis to unwind what was done? They have already had eight players leave the program and had two decommits. Based upon what I read in the ESPN report noted in one of my previous posts, it seems that the board had knowledge of the Freeh report and there seemed to be acceptance of its findings, at least by some of its members.
I don't think we're talking about ultra vires here. Ultra vires is when a body corporate acts outside its charter. If a body corporate makes a contract beyond the scope of its corporate powers, that contract will generally be unenforceable. (I try to keep discussions of legal Latin de minimis, by the way.)
The question here (and I think it's a valid one, heinous underlying subject matter notwithstanding) is whether Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree and bind PSU. I'm confident that PSU (writ large) has the ability to enter into a consent decree. The question is whether under the university charter the president has the ability to bind the university acting on his own. Essentially it's a question of whether the necessary consents were obtained and the formalities observed.
When you do a transaction of any moment in the business world, you always check for due authorization, require copies of current by-laws, certify that the company in question is in good standing, etc. You want to ensure that the deal you cut isn't challenged on authorization or similar grounds. What's astounding in the PSU case is it seems entirely possible that nobody thought to see exactly what procedures needed to be followed for PSU to accept the consent decree.
Two possibilities here - (A) Erickson had due authority, so the other trustees are acting like idiots by challenging this; or (B) Erickson lacked the authority, so he and his few BoT colleagues in the know are acting like idiots.
One certainty here - persons in positions of great responsibility are acting like idiots.
I can only remember a few latin terms so when the opportunity comes up to use one every five years or so, I make the leap. I believe that ultra vires is a term that has meaning beyond the world of corporations. I am sitting in a bar with laptop in hand and can't acces my online copy of Black's law dictionary. In an attempt to save face, I present to you a Wiki link (yeah, I know - I'm an IP guy, that explains it).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_vires
Getting beyond definitions, PSU had attorneys involved with the negotiations with the NCAA for some time. The board was cognizant of the report and its findings. Can you envision any way that a court would overturn the agreement between the NCAA and PSU? Would there even be a requirement that approval, assuming that it was necessary, had to be written?
This is correct in terms of what the term "ultra vires" actually means (in this case, it would be whether the actions of the President and Chairwoman were within their scope of authority), but I've never run into it used legally in that sense (ie just in the traditional corporate law sense about the actions of an entity, not individuals within an entity). In that sense, you are both really talking about the same thing, just using separate terms.
And the "punishment" has nothing to do with the budget. WTF
IMO this is just an attempt by the trustees to give an “appearance” that they have fought the decision. Not that it will go anywhere, just so they not appear to have rolled over. Didn't they already agree with the decision?
It is the last thing PSU needs though, take the punishment, get it over with and try to salvage what you can of the university’s honor and reputation.
PSU *voluntarily* accepted the punishment. In effect, they self imposed than as part of that self imposed punishment entered into an agreement with the NCAA so that it couldn't be undone.
They were of sound mind and body. They had sufficient access to legal council.
They are in a legal binding document.
They cannot appeal to the NCAA because they went outside of that system *voluntarily* and self imposed.
I've never understood the argument that "the NCAA went out of [its] way to to ignore [its] own rules." The rules alloow a school to request that the process bypass the Infractions Committee investigation, and PSU did just that, for fear of what the Infractions Committee would hand down. The NCAA BoD signed off on the settlement, and the infractions committee works for the President and the BoD.
I am not sure that 4 of the 32 members of the PSU BoD have standing to file a suit on behalf of the board.
The sooner Penn State fans realize this, the better.
Penn St just doesn't get it.
They crumbled immediately under pressure from the Paterno family.
They couldn't handle being out of the news for a week or 2?
they freakin agree to the sanctions? I thought that was the Paterno family's point - the Board agreed to penalties that they didn't have a chance to weigh in on. The whole thing is beyond f'ed up.
they didn't even know about them. The president, Erickson negotiated seperately, with the chairman of the BOT. The article claims that Erickson did ask outside council if he had the authority to buypass the BOT, and they said he did.
The BOT accepted that last week, but I believe - not 100% sure that a few new guys were elected by PSU alumni and those guys are part of the 4 demanding due process by the NCAA or a federal lawsuit.
The new president agreed to/accepted the sanctions/plea bargin in lieu of a full investigation/due process.
It appears that 4 BoT members don't like that he did that. I remember some questions as to whether or not the President had the authority to accept the sanctions when they came down, and it seems that at least a few BoT members disagree with the decision, and might question if he had the power to accept them.
/not saying it's right, just what their justification might be.
Yes - since the NCAA took the wins away from Joe Paterno's record (and he fell to #5 or so on the list) he (and presummably his estate) is an involved party who should have been given an opportunity to present their side of the case. It most likely would not have made a difference, but the process would have been followed, and there would be no standing now for the continuing saga.
Yes - the Penn State board of trustees should have accepted the Freeh report, and then submitted a statement that it was a long report and they needed a short period of time to fully review it before commenting on it. (Question: that report was the number one critical issue facing the board. Why in hell did they not drop all other agenda items and go through that report line by line and then release a statement to the public?)
Yes - given that the Freeh report says one of the key issues was lack of accountability and transparency with the board on the Sandusky matter, the president should have had the board involved in the decision process, and that should have been the argument back to the NCAA when the NCAA said he could not take it to the full board. The NCAA said Penn State needs to adopt all measures recommended in the report, yet in direct conflict does not allow the president to brief the board.
Also - given that the local police, and DA elected to drop the '98 case, if I were Penn State, I would argue they turned that one over to local authorities and child services organizations and it was dropped, so their punishment should be based on control issues starting with the 2001 incident. (Of course the corollary there is even if the DA dropped the '98 case, Sandusky should have never been given access to Penn State facilities, emeritus status, etc.)
While we're at it - No - the NCAA did not base the sanctions just off the Freeh report, Emmert said the Freeh report AND the Sandusky Grand Jury and trial evidence were considered as well.
All that said, Penn State did not turn the more explicit 2001 case over to local authorities, and thus were complicit in covering up a child molestor's activities from 2001 to 2009.
And, the Penn State President signed the agreement, and "In fact, while he had been consulting with Peetz and other trustees on the executive committee" he did not brief the entire board or put it up for a vote. Either way, done deal unless they push it too far.
Bottom line, Penn State has way too many board members, and that is the primary reason why they appear like a pushme-pullyou ...
Not defending their choice to challenge, but according to this article, the BoT didn't agree to the sanctions, just the president.
That article also states, however, that the chairwoman of the board of trustees and its executive committee were appraised of the sanctions and gave at least their implied consent to Erickson to sign the consent decree (with the threat of the death penalty still being held out by the NCAA).
sorry, double post.
Things are going to get awfully ugly if they fire Erickson and bring in a second replacment for Spanier. The in-fighting will destroy what's left. Imagine having to be the guy who brings everyone together. Tough, tough job.
Erickson is interim President. I think he only took the job with the understanding that the Board would commence a search for a new president. IIRC, he's leaving (or more properly, returning to his faculty position) after this upcoming academic year.
That will be one interesting search. They better get it right.
Well, then there are a couple of questions: does Erickson, as interim pres, have the authority to make the decision, even with The BOT's president in agreement? And what good candidate is going to want that job?
Erickson had been the executive VP since 1999 and he is scheduled to step down in June 2014.
at the earliest opportunity.
Sounds to me they're going to try and put in a Paterno guy. Really pathetic.
So what happens to them if they lose? Seriously the longer they decide to drag this out, the worse the punishment should be. GET OVER IT! The faster you move on the faster everything gets back to some meridian line of normal.. what a joke.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is Penn State appealing the sanctions because Penn state didn't follow the rules. This is getting so ridiculous and embarrassing.
Black Shoe Diaries rejoices!!!! Go away penn state. Take your medicine and GO THE F*CK AWAY!
Perhaps name a locker room for Sandusky?
They could have mitigated the damage from the scandal and claimed it was confined to the athletic department. Now, the university is going to risk far more damage to its integrity as an academic institution. Dumb move. Very dumb.
Seriously though, they need to just move on and rebuild. Why continue to bring the worst event in your schools history up and relive the tragedy?
A very good point. It was widely considered that PSU quietly accepting the NCAA's sanctions was a very good damage control move. NCAA investigation means even more free discovery for the coming civil suits. Prolonging the process just fuels the fire of those who would say that the university is unable to move forward and learn from their mistakes.
I believe this comment pretty much sums up everyone's thoughts who are not directly affiliated with penn state.
Process was unprecedented, incredibly messy. But wait several weeks after accepting? Total fail. People are right--this might drive more kids away.
I think it was anything but. Following their normal procedures would have dragged the process out a long time. Inevitably, it would have gotten much messier.
precedented nature of the crime could ever justify a rush to judgement, and--disgusting as the crime was--I think there are plenty of legitimate questions to raise about how the NCAA handled it. But (again) you don't ACCEPT the judgement, wait several weeks, then start complaining; from a PR standpoint, that looks like stupid sour grapes.
I don't yet HAVE an opinion about the legitimacy or the justice of the punishment. I think it could be fine; I'm also open to arguments that the courts should have taken care of it and that it might not have been within the NCAA's brief. I think you'd have to do a lot of research to figure that one out. Also understand people's need for closure, but don't really feel that way myself. I still think it's all pretty fascinating, troubling.
This is a lawsuit being filed by 4 trustees (out of a total of over 30). The board has a sizable faction of PSU football alumni and Joe Paterno apologists that were never going to accept the NCAA consent decree, and I still can't believe the President accepted the decree without making sure the Board was on board first or at least notified. I am guessing the reason is because these certain trustees were going to fight NCAA punishment to the bitter end, the rest of the university be damned.
He had the executive committee of the Board of Trustees on board, according to espn's reporting.
So let me get this straight. 4 members are upset that a decision was made without the entire boards consent ... Yet they are now about to file something without the entire boards consent. Anyone else totally caught up in this irony other than me?
NCAA should say OK fine, we withdraw the current penalties - now you get the death penalty.
There is no Due Process requirement for the NCAA. They are a private organization. See NCAA v. Tarkanian, 488 U.S. 179 (1988).
STOP THIS DUMBSHITTERY YOU COLOSSAL ASSHATS.
...as in the covering of. I imagine that these people just want to be able to say they fought the sanctions.
Not only that, but the legal question involved isn't even against the NCAA; it's against Penn State itself (ie lack of authority). So, even though it'll appear as a Penn State v. NCAA suit, it's really Penn State (BoT) v. Penn State (President and BoT Chairwoman) , which brings this to a whole new level of absurdity.
I keep pointing this out when Penn State fans scream, "DUE PROCESS! DUE PROCESS!" and they keep not getting it.
God would it be sweet if Emmert simply said "you know what...you guys are 100% right. Four year death penalty is now in play while we hash out the legality of our first punishment".
Every day they find ways to make me hate them even more.
That was my first thought too . . . for the death penalty to be back on the table. But upon reflection, I'd just like to see the current penalties extended . . . say to eight years? Make PSU irrelevant for even longer. I think that the current punishment is awesome, because the lemmings will all continue to go to the games (thus generating money,) but we all get to enjoy a significant period of seeing PSU lose. I think the death penalty would be too kind to Penn State.
A four year death penalty would kill the program. Not to obscurity... Completely. They will never recover.
Schools have started up programs from scratch before, and without the advantages Penn State would have. They might have to spend a few years playing D2 in the PSAC before they were ready to return to D1, but a school of Penn State's size can always have football if they really want it.
The (many) pieces of the PSU fan base -- BOT, Paternos, ex players, fans in general -- have missed the point. YOU ALL ARE BEING PUNISHED FOR WHAT YOU DID.
Sandusky did the evil. But Paterno and his regime allowed it to fester and grow, because they had power. The power given to them by the university and by football fans. They so loved their winning that they created an aura around Joe, where even Joe believed he could do no wrong -- that what he did was, by definitely, always righteous. Everytime Joe went out in public, the fans always told him you're the best Joe, we're so proud of you Joe, you are not only a winner but a humanitarian Joe. For a senile old fart in his 70's and 80's having heard it for decades, he totally believed it. And it warped him so much, the Program became more important than justice for the victims.
Who did all that? YOU DID, PSU FANS. Look in the mirror, you put football on too high a pedastal. And the BOT still doesn't get it.
Rescind the sanctions.
Death Penalty for four years. Nothing less.
Yes, yes, yes, please... a thousand times yes - give them the death penalty... they deserve at least them much for their fucking stupidity and head-in-the-sand approach to this whole sordid affair!
"After that three-hour session in State College, the board issued a statement saying it was standing by Erickson's decision to sign the consent decree. " - the article, regarding the July 25th session of the PSU Board Of Trustees
I could be wrong, but in a way, this should have been the end of it, even with new blood on the Board Of Trustees. They agreed with the decision, in essence, and I assume they did so in full knowledge of what the Chancellors really would have liked to do. To see them reverse course now only seems like more evidence that, in death, Joe Paterno lives somehow and that they really do not grasp the gravity of what exactly happened on their campus - at the hands of people who were answerable to this board, which in turn failed to seek answers - for many years.
Nothing... PSU BoT will get nothing out of it, other than EVERYONE OUTSIDE OF PENNSYLVANIA HATING PENN STATE.
Initially I had some sympathy for the school following that which Paterno and the prior administration put them through, but no more... now I am just sick of hearing about this and want it to all recede into the background.
PSU deserves all the crap the NCAA, B1G and the victims heap on them.
You know what would be refreshing? If anyone out there would take responsibility for themselves. Instead, it always is cast as somebody else's fault. I do hope that PSU suffers greatly. Their hubris and cluelessness is astounding.
The BSD folks are praising this insanity?! I've never witnessed an institution commit sepukku before but we're all about to get a glance.
Absolute suicide....enjoy the death penalty PSU.
I'm with those who want Penn State out of the conference. I'm sick of their fans actions, sick of the JoePa apologists, really, REALLY sick of the Paterno family caring more about those vacated wins than Sandusky's victims and I'm sick of the bad exposure of them being in our conference.
Take the SEC with their oversigning, paying of players and spending 15 out of 20 years on probation. When those jackasses are looking down on your conference, something is very wrong.
I want PSU gone. I'll help them pack.
I totally agree. At the beginning I didn't, but now I do. I'm sick of them. They don't really want the Big Ten anyway, and they need us far more than we need them. Tell them to join the Big East or ACC, because the SEC won't have them (especially since they'll suck for at least a decade and who knows after that). They'll be lucky to be a South Carolina or Missouri level program 20 years from now.
You have hit the nail on the head here.
Kicked out of B1G would be a start also.
My understanding was they formally agreed to the sanctions so that should be the end of it. In that sense they're appealing their own decision. Their rationale was they wanted to get the NCAA part behind them and move on. This is more of internal fight than an appeal to the NCAA, at least in essence.
This doesn't make any sense. From a P.R. standpoint, this is a disaster. They should be running away from the spotlight. The longer this plays out and is stuck in the headlines, the worse this is for PSU.
Second, more than anything, appealing this decision says a lot about the university leadership and the fanbase it represents. It confirms that they live and interact in a bubble society that STILL doesn't see the depth of the devastation this scandal has brought to college football and their community. Regardless of what the punishment was, PSU should have been wise to take it on the chin without argument. They got, what most have stated, lighter sanctions than expected, and still care to appeal? You got what you deserved. You, perhaps, got off light. If you don't accept the punishment, it proves you don't understand what you did wrong.
I used to scoff at the people who believed PSU should get booted from the B1G. But I'm starting to ease closer and closer to their side of the argument...
Breaking News. Penn State is officially the North Korea of the B1G.
then Penn State has to be booted out of the B1G. Because of the membership in the CIC (which PSU has benefited from greatly), the rotten acts of the previous PSU leadership carries a much greater taint beyond athletics, and the conference would be very justified in booting them out of concern for the integrity of the CIC, as well as the B1G (since the coverup was undertaken to protect the football program as well as PSU as a whole). You can take the JoePa issue out of it - the academic/research link that the schools share through the CIC makes the university governance (and its apparently continuing dysfunction) sufficient justification to run them out.
I thought PSU was a great get for the B1G 20 years ago, but if they can't get their shit together and keep it together, then they have to go.
This is a really good point. A BOT that caused continued instability to the university might be the one trigger at this point that would cause the CIC to expel Penn State.
The problem is that the structure by which people are elected to the BOT (with a number of trustees elected by alumni vote) encourages the kind of grandstanding we're seeing, and it's particularly damaging when it seems that at least a plurality of Penn State alums have an understanding of the situation that's wildly divergent from the vast majority of people outside of their orbit. So there's an incentive for at least some of those trustees to play to alums complaining about due process even if the majority of the board has accepted the penalties and wants to move on to the issues of stabalizing the university.
It wasn't long ago when this was all the rage.
I will always like Joe Paterno in spite of/despite his humanity. Poor guy made some horrible mis-calculations at a terrible price for many, but I don't think he ever grasped the enormity of his transgressions, or he wouldn't have committed them.
Mis-calculations is being rather generous.
He turned a blind eye because he was so in love with his image and it's connection to the PSU football program that not even the well being of child after child after child after child was enough for him to finally do the right thing until the cat was let out of the bag. And even then, he still perjured himself to the Grand Jury and came up with that lame excuse of saying he should have done more when we all know he would have continued in silence had Sandusky never been caught.
I would have expected more from a man who had 16 grandchildren but apparently, I was wrong.
He wasn't just protecting his image, he was protecting his money. Lots more to come with the Second Mile stuff, follow the money.
I hadn't read that before. Those articles are really eye opening.
Wow thanks for posting that Brown Bear...that's amazing. I cant wait for the perjury trials to start cause I'm guessing everybody is getting offered the old "whoever rolls first gets the deal" card. And somebody's going to take it and really spill the beans and God only knows what's going to come out.
That's great you think he's adorable in that commercial. Also that you don't want to let go of your prior opinion of Paterno, no matter the evidence that contradicts it.
One more addition to what WH is saying: keep in mind the chronology. When McQueary came to Paterno to report the shower rape, the old man was coming off of two consecutive 5-loss seasons. It was a miscalculation that he didn't make good and goddamn sure Sandusky was fully investigated by law enforcment and banned from PSU facilities? Or it was mere calculation that his tenure at PSU - already hanging by a thread - wouldn't be able to handle the fallout?
Never found Joe Paterno adorable.
That all good, and I understand the hate, but I just ain't feeling it. I guess for me it is a hate the sin not the sinner scenario.
Furthermore, Though I don't like Jerry Sandusky, I don't hate the guy either, he is sort of a pathetic, weak willed, manipulative bully, but instead of hate, I feel puzzlement.
Why are some men attracted to little boys or little girls? I know it's not a discussion for this board and it seems to be a taboo subject overall, although for me, it's the elephant in the room, and where my thoughts always come back too. The why regarding the deepest and strongest of human impulses.
The "why" doesn't matter. Why do I like to drive my car really fast? Who knows, but I know that I can't do it, because it's both illegal and dangerous. If I decide to completely ignore those things, drive 100mph down the road and hit someone, I'm a bad person who deserves punishment.
Sandusky is a capable adult human being, cognitive enough to hold a high position and diagram complex, successful defenses. Paterno willfully covered him up. My Grandma is 82 right now, and I can tell you that she might not be able to carry her groceries up her steps very well or stay up past 9am, but she can tell the difference between right and wrong.
Neither man has any excuse, and it's both surpising and disappointing to hear you giving them as much as the benefit of the doubt.
I agree it is astounding that Joe Pa is complicit in this. It is so against the PSU culture and the Joe Pa image, that it doesn't compute. And there are many, many people who have not made the shift because it is so shocking. Especially, it seems, some PSU fans and board members.
I was talking with an Ohio alumn the other night. (We get along down here in ACC land, because at least there is someone who understands.) We both are dyed in the wool / part of our identitiy fans for our schools, and we both feel bad for the PSU fans out there (and by extension the Joe Pa fans). Neither of us could imagine how we'd deal with this if it had been Michigan, or Ohio, especially under say Bo or Woody. I know Bo was black and white on this stuff, and thus would have handled it differently. But what we're talking about is the image of Joe Pa and the Grand Experiment, was similar enough, that when the facts come out, many people cannot handle them.
So the facts still need to come out. Once it is all out on the table, I think there will finally be a point where the shock wears off, and people start to accept that Joe Pa was complicit in a coverup of the worst type.
As for why people do these things: I think it does matter why. Sure it is too late in Sandusky's case, but the only way you really prevent something is to figure out why and either identify it early on, or fix it.
It's about finding out why someone like him does these things. It's obvious that the fear of serious punishment will not dissuade someone like that. So the only way to stop them is to make sure the same problems don't develop in someone else. You can't save Sandusky's victims at this point. But you might be able to prevent the next string of victims of someone else.
Miscalculations? kids were raped so he could protect his football record. What don't you get?
Somewhere along the way Paternoster lost his moral compass.
The cost of protecting his legacy, the program and Penn State's noble experiment was children's innocence.
Also, with this move the BOT continues to legitimize the actions. How the fcuk and with what morality does the leadership at PSU determine to propose to appeal and reduce the sanctions.
Screw it NCAA...4 years death penalty.
I couldn't decide if "Paternoster" was brilliant or O$U-style flamebait.
If it was just an autocomplete screw-up, it was glorious. Nothing could have better summed up what's gone wrong there.
Yeah, I actually liked the "Paternoster" line. It seemed appropriate for PSU.
Ipad autocompletes Paterno to "paternoster". If I was going flamebait I might have gone with Paterno$ter.
FWIW I did not know of this...
Can four trustees file suit? I would assume only the university would have any standing, meaning the Board of Trustees as a whole would need to challenge it.
I had originally assumed that threats of the death penalty were a bit of an exageration to convince PSU to go along with sanctions, but it's sounding less like that was the case. Plus, I figured that, even if it was an exageration, the university fighting back might be enough to convince the NCAA that it was appropriate.
You also have to wonder how the Big Ten would respond to a real challenge. The only reason the four years isn't completely disastrous is that PSU will be a member of the Big Ten when it's all done. Even if it doesn't change the NCAA penalty, a challenge could reasonably trigger Big Ten expulsion.
In the end, if this doesn't get quickly rejected by the NCAA and the courts, I really think it could be disaster for Penn State.
...I'd think the Board itself might have some issues with members filing a minority action. Here are some excerpts from the PSU statement of "expectations of members of the Board":
5. Speak openly within the Board and publicly support decisions
reached by the Board
6. Make decisions and instruct the administration as a Board,
not as individuals
11. Advocate the University's interests, but speak for the Board or
the University only when authorized to do so by the Board or
12. Respect established channels to acquire information or open
communication with constituents
I'll be surprised if the Board doesn't call a meeting, take a vote, and distance itself from this as quickly as it can. Or support it--they need to do one or the other or this is going to be a disaster.
I don't think the BOT would be appealing this if the NCAA had just punished the football program, but when they tacked on the $60 million fine and did it without due dilligence, then it's not too surprising the BOT wants to take another look at it. I'm thinking they all had to be in agreement on the whole paying $60 million, and some of them weren't...
The BoT isn't appealing this. read the news. Four trustees are appealing. Actually, they are extremely unappealing, but you get my point.
As for the assertion that the NCAA acted "without due dilligence," I'd suggest you look up the term before using it again. Maybe you meant "due process," but in that case I would point out that you utterly failed to provide due process in making your assertion, and you have as much obligation to provide due process as the NCAA has.
Here's a description of the reponsibilities of the BOT, which might be of interest to anyone curious about counsel's decision that the Board didn't need to be consulted. I suppose you could make a case that the fine might trigger the Board's responsiblity for "prudent oversight of the University's endowment, finances, and other tangible assets," and the board's responsible for review of the annual budget.Role of the Board of Trustees in University Governance
Probably depends more on historical precedent--what kind and scale of decisions are ordrinarily presented for Board approval?--more than on the actual wording here.
like the NCAA scorned.
Be warned BOT fools.
Who had the in with the CiC? was it CRex? i'd love to hear what they are saying now
Who had the in with the CiC? was it CRex? i'd love to hear what they are saying now
While I may be in the minority, I'm glad Penn St. is giving The NCAA the finger. I hope theyvein their federal suit and put the NCAA in their place. We have criminal an civil courts for a reason. This was none of the NCAAs business.
You are in the minority.
Sure, we have civil and criminal courts. Various enforcement entities have overlapping jurisdiction all the time. Just because something is punished in criminal court doesn't mean it isn't also punishable in civil court. Look no further than Tatgate; that was a federal drug investigation that happened to have an NCAA component.
Besides, as a general rule, when in doubt I tend to side with potentially overreaching enforcement agencies over child rapist enablers.
Im not sure you read what I wrote. I'm not objecting to the use of criminal AND civil courts, the NCAA is neither of these. Of the NCAA is such the enforcer of good, why does Baylor still have athletics? I'm guessing covering up a murder, along with a truckload of other violations just isn't a big deal?
My point was that just because this is a criminal and/or civil matter doesn't mean that it isn't ALSO an NCAA matter (much like something can be a criminal matter and a civil matter at the same time).
I'm also incredibly unpersuaded by the "others have done it and weren't punished like this" argument; try it next time you fight a speeding ticket. But if we're talking about Baylor, they got a half-season ban, a couple of show-cause orders for the coaches, scholarship reductions, recruiting limitations, and five years probation. And that was all because of the actions of a rogue coach, not a conspiracy among the entire upper echelon of a university.
Nobody at Baylor covered up a murder. Bliss tried to throw the murder victim's reputation under the bus and tried to get his players and coaches to lie to investigators, but he wasn't covering up the murder or protecting the murderer--he was trying to cover up the fact that he'd been slipping improper benefits to the victim by inventing another source for the cash.
It's not really a parallel for Paterno/Sandusky; it was its own peculiar form of heinous, but Bliss didn't enable continued crimes the way Paterno and his colleagues did and he acted on his own without the support or cooperation of his AD and President.
Except anyone who can differentiate between Justice and Vengeance.
They're free to leave anytime they want if they don't like living under their rules. Lots of schools thrive without athletics. So it's completely within the NCAA's purview to punish an athletic program for having major participants in that program covering up a crime.
Being a voluntary organization doesn't remove constitutional rights of due process.
It doesn't. But being a private organization does. So there is absolutely no constitutional right to due process in re: the NCAA.
Once more, to review: most constitutional rights are restrictions on government action. They don't apply to private action. The only exception is slavery. You can't own slaves. That's it.
Other things the NCAA can do to its members:
- Quarter soldiers in its dorms
- Restrict its members rights of free speech, assembly, and the press.
- implement cruel and unusual punishment
- Take away its members' guns
But again: no slaves.
Thank you. I get so tired of people misunderstanding this very basic concept.
Isn't the right to due process restricted to criminal proceedings?
It applies to civil matters also; if a government agency fires a guy without a hearing, that's a (potential) due process violation.
However, as I said above, it still doesn't apply here, because there are no slaves involved.
consents to being fired rather than some harsher action, but his ass contests the decision?
opting to take a plea deal to avoid the four year death penalty that due process is likely to bring.
PSU is trying to get this thing out of the headlines, not figure out how to be a rules merchant and fight this sucker out in court. They're making moves settle with the victims of Sandusky, get the media to move on to other topics, and hope that the Clery Act violations don't destroy them.
The NCAA had every right to send PSU a notice of possible infractions. Given scandal and athletic department, the NCAA has every right to express interest. PSU's response was merely "We don't wish to contest, what will it take to make this all go away?" They got what they asked for and if you notice the B1G and other associations of schools backed the NCAA on this. Schools that could one day find themselves facing the same type of dilemna granted the power to the NCAA President to directly punish Penn State via a vote of NCAA members. PSU asked for it, the other schools granted the NCAA a mandate, this was not illegal or a lynching.
It would probably greatly help this situation of everyone stopped referring to it as "Due Process" (which has a very specific legal meaning), which does not apply here, and instead use the term "process".
With no concept of what they mean or how they work. You're like the guy who screams about his 1st Amendment rights being violated when his board post gets deleted, not understanding what the government is required to do over a private organization.
A Venn diagram is worth 1000 words, or something like that!
I was beginning to think I was the only one who felt this way. I'm sure everyone here would just shut up and take their medicine if the NCAA obliterated the Michigan football program for criminal actions of 3-4 department officals.
I forgot how much everyone here likes reading the exact same opinion 100+ times in a row.
/drinks mgoblog kool-aid... Only five years!?? Make it ten years, dammit!!!
I must have missed all this NCAA love when they handed down our sanctions for stretching too much. M Wolverine probably pointed out that it was "completely within the NCAA's purview" to do so.
that M-Wolverine never said that our penalties were outside the purview of the NCAA.
I think we got what we deserved from the NCAA. We broke the rules, we deserved to get punished. It was pretty minor violations with no ill intent, just confusion of rules and protocol, so we got minor punishment. Is it something they could have found anywhere if they looked? Sure. And they only looked because of a newspaper vendetta. But we handled it te right way, admitted our mistakes, investigated ourselves with an anal probe to show that really was it, and took our lumps.
And while we're on it, I thought we got what we deserved for the Fab Five too.
that if we found out that Hoke, Dave Brandon, and Mary Sue Coleman were actively covering up, for DECADES, a child rapist associated with the football program, that we would disappointedly accept the punishment handed out. And beyond that, I would really, REALLY hope that even if some fans had a hard time accepting it, that our leaders would be reasonable enough to say, "no, guys, we fucked up."
Off topic to the BoT actions. While do agree with what you say, BiSB, put yourself in the board's shoes. I'm going to assume that the board's assertion that the president didn't have the authority to bind the school to these sanctions is correct. I respect their decision to challenge that.
This was four renegade trustees, not the whole board.
That would be irrelevant. It's about the President's authority to unilaterally bind the university to an agreement.
I still think it's a horrible move, but I understand it and am not horrified by it.
The Board already agreed that the President had the authority to enter the agreement; they also approved the agreement itself when it was presented to them. If they thought he'd exceeded his authority they had the option of removing him; they didn't. They also could have requested that he or his replacement appeal the sanctions; they didn't.
If these guys want to dispute those decisions because they think the Board violated its own by-laws, they can sue the board. Otherwise, they've already lost their case in the only place that mattered: the board meeting that considered the sanction agreement. Going after the NCAA because of alleged misdoings by Penn State's president and/or trustees isn't going to get them anywhere.
also says the president consulted with the chairman and several members of the executive committee. So just because the four yahoos were not consulted, does not mean the entire board was kept into the dark.
In essence, there are the wise(er) board members trying to navigate PSU through this mess, and the Joe Pa crazies, trying to preserve the smoking crater that was his legacy.
Fortunately for PSU, the navigators appear to hold the decision making roles.
It became the NCAA's business when the crimes were being committed in football facilities under the eye of a football program.
So I'm curious, if this happened in a hospital setting, with high ranking members doing exactly what PSU did, would you support these kid of penalties? Everyone keeps saying the fans an the faculty are just as much to blame, like they lied to also cover this up. So would you punish the employees and patients o the hospital for the actions of a few?
I'm sure the response to this will be that completely different, I'm used to people avoiding tough questions.
or this one, a little older:Abuse scandal hospital Winterbourne View to close this week
A bit of googling also turned up a church daycare being shut down over similar allegations, with the church itself also unlikely to survive, even though there were no allegations that the abuse was anything other than the actions of a single church employee--no cover up, no failure to report.
What you describe doesn't seem all that unusual...well, except that the circumstances themselves are unusual.
The hospital article link is from England and isn't any sense of what we would regard has a hospital. It was a center for leanin disabilities.
I can't find an article on a full-service hospital with problems like Penn State's, probably because there is no such hospital. If it ever did happen--a doctor raping patients in the pediatric ward for years, even coming back to do so long after he'd retired, while the chief of pediatrics and the president of the hospital actively covered up the crimes each time an orderly or PCA reported seeing something--I'd fully expect the pediatric department to disappear for a while, if not the entire hospital.
If you've got an example, please post it (I really hope there isn't one though).
I would support the CIC booting the university out if the university failed to report and actively covered it up, including the head of the hospital and university perjuring themselves.
Since what a hospital and football program do is completely different, in task and importance, but for fun let's roll with it.
Not a tough question. Sure. Fine a hospital millions of dollars for it, don't allow them to apply for public grants since they've apparently spent our public dollars covering up child rape, they don't get to go to the AMA convention for four years. And if those costs mean there's no Christmas bonus for employees who had nothing to do with it, oh well. You know, if there was an organization of hospitals they were a member of who all agreed to police each other for such things. And tons of equivalent hospitals that all the patients could get immediate transfers to if they want with the same level of care.
So no, not that hard a question. Just not a very good one.
So simply put, you don't care who is collateral damage in the punishment. No matter how many more innocent people are affected, you are perfectly fine with that? If you can't find a problem with that, you need help.
Football isn't a right, it's a privilege. A privilege that Penn State hasn't even lost.
The students on campus are not "victims," nor are the alums, nor are the players on the team. To use the term in such a way illustrates a real disconnect with reality.
The disconnect with reality lies in your thought that I am even remotely referring to football. Tell me that the affects of this punishment will only affect the football program. Tell me that some 1st year professor won't lose his job because of budget cuts even though he doesn't give a damn about college football. Tell me that some kid won't have his scholarship, (for something other than football) not renewed. Tell me that people who don't care about Joe Paterno or anything else to do with Athletics won't suffer at all from this. I'm sorry you can't get past football, but there will be victims.
When/why are these budget cuts you are theorizing going to materialize? The ruling clearly stated that the money had to come directly from the football program. Furthermore, PSU has to prove that the money came from Football and did not affect (you used it correctly once and incorrectly once) other sports or academics. If the fans are still fans of the school and the alums are still going to donate, why would the university suffer? People are still buying merchandise, games will still be on TV, classes are still being attended. I am not sure where this doomsday scenario you have in your head originated, but it seems far-fetched.
Academics are academics. They would be foolish to fire professors when the only thing they will have going for them after this is the high quality of education at this institution.
So feel free to correct me if I'm wrong. But are you suggesting that of the easily $100+ million dollars they are goin to lose/be fined, none of that money raised by football would have gone towards academics?
You are corrected.
None of the money they have been fined will come out of the budgets non-revenue sports or academics. It all has to come out of the football budget.
Even if your wack-a-doo doomsday scenario were to come about, if Penn State seriously considers lowering the quality of their education to save their football program, then they are too irresponsible as a university to have had a football program in the first place.
I'm not saying they will take it from academics. I'm asking does none of the money the football program would make go towards their academics at all. Does the athletic program support 0% of non athletics? For that matter does the football program only support the football program and nothing else?
Football revenue goes toward funding non-revenue sports, but seeing as Penn State is prohibited from cutting funding from their non-revenue sports, that shouldn't be a problem.
I don't understand why you're so caught up in the fines. If anything, they're the least siginificant part of the penalties. IIRC, immediately after Joe Pa's firing, Penn State received something like $200 million in donations. So enough money has already been raised by
PSU to cover the fines several times over.
The reason why I'm focusing on money is because that is the only place people outside the program are going to suffer. I'm not suggesting that the bowl ban and scholarship reduction is unjust. I would just prefer that people who couldn't care less about football don't suffer for the actions of a handful of people. If the only ones affected, whether it be directly or indirectly are people associated with the football program, whether it be fans, players, or coaches, then I withdraw m argument.
Clearly I misunderstood how the finances of a private college work.
Penn State is not a private university, they are a public university.
I don't know if Penn State is anything like Michigan, but Michigan's academic and athletic departments are wholly separate entities. None of the academic money ever crosses paths with the athletic money. Our athletic department survives entirely off of donations.
Someone could probably break it down better than I could, but that's the gist of it at U of M. I would imagine it's the same at most (if not all) large public universities.
I doubt that Penn State's endowment is being used to subsidize their football program, and if PSU's AD needs to borrow money from the university, it will more than likely pay it back and then some. I would imagine however, that there are more than enough wealthy PSU donors willing to help alleviate the financial burdens of the football program.
I've heard Penn State has a giant "rainy day" fund they will most likely tap in order to pay the fines.
Edit: Aaaaand, here's an article about the matter.
Well clearly I was off on a few important facts. Thank you for correcting me. I would say your explanation will suffice.
Not quite true. The athletic department at Michigan sent two types of money into the academic funding of the school in 2011:
(1) a bit over $16 million in student aid (athletic scholarships); and
(2) a direct donation of close to $2 million to the general scholarship fund.
If PSU does it similarly, then one could expect a direct drop in #1 due to the reduction in scholarships, and expect #2 to dry up completely due to the need to fund the fine.
Those reductions, at Michigan, might not mean a professor gets laid off or a part-time professor doesn't get funded, but it would mean that some students would not get scholarships due to the disappearance of the general scholarship fund grant. But that has been true at michigan in years past also, so it can't really be considered a "punishment" for those students.
What the fuck are you talking about?
File all of that in your madeupshitthatwonthappen folder.
Putting Sandusky in jail causes collateral damage to his family. I don't mind him being in jail. The only answer to avoid it is punish no one.
And for some reason you seem to think there won't be any collateral damage from a legal ruling. What difference does it make if a court fines the school that money or the NCAA? Same damage.
You're all over the place, back and forth, and your arguments just don't make much sense. Quit while you're behind.
I couldn't help but laugh at this. Did you just compare the NCAA to a legal court proceeding? Why doesn't the NCAA start fining players who get in trouble? Mark Emmert should fine BWC a few more hundred dollars. After all football is a privilege an he doesn't have to be in "the club."
You're all over the place. Either financial fines hurting others is bad, or it's not bad. You went with the former. Either it's something for only the courts, or the NCAA can have a say. You went with the former. But if your position is that collateral damage is ok only if it's done by the courts, and not a private enterprise, well, then, that's just insane. By that reasoning a company can't fire someone who's costing a company millions because it might hurt his wife and kids. The world is not a court of law, constitutional rights aren't applicable everywhere, nor should they be.
And they "fine" players all the time. Sometimes they take away games. (Since they're not paid). Sometimes they kick them out of school...which does stop them from being paid...their scholarship. If any of those players don't like the decision they can pull a Pryor and just leave. You're right, they don't have to be in the club if they don't like it.
My only question is...what year did you get your degree from Penn State?
No my argument is simply this. Raping children and committing perjury is a criminal case and eventually a civil one. It should not be policed by a bunch of idiots who always claim to have no power to do anything. I don't see this as an athletic issue, which is what the NCAA is in charge of policing.
While I understand you were being facetious, I didn't go to Penn St and have no love for them. I just prefer the legal system to do it's job.
It's an athletic issue because high ranking athletic department and school officials acted to protect the athletic program. They're not punishing PSU for child rape; they're punishing them for ignoring AND covering up child rape (to protect the image and success of their football program). There would be no punishment for having Sandusky if as soon as they found out about it they went public with it.
And I'm not sure how you can want the legal system to do its job, but complain that the NCAA never does its job, but when it does, it's a problem.
Everyone must also keep in mind that the NCAA's bylaws are written as such that almost anything can become an NCAA issue.
For example, one of them states something to the effect of (and I'm paraphrasing here, but someone no doubt has it on hand), "All member institutions have moral as well as ethical responsibilities to ensure the protection and well being of young people above all else."
Penn State was in gross violation of that, and it could also be argued that they received an unfair competitive advantage from the cover up.
For example, had the scandal broke after the 2001 season, almost immediately after McQueary first witnessed Sandusky in the shower with one of the children, that would have undoubtedly had a major impact on the program going forward.
Penn State's two biggest recruiting tools were Joe Pa, and their spotless reputation. Had the cover up come to light then, both of those things probably would have been gone.
What would the fallout have been? What sanctions would the NCAA have lobbied? Who would have transferred? What recruits would have never considered Penn State in light of the scandal, and potentially looming NCAA sanctions?
Would Penn State have finished 11-1, won the Orange Bowl, and finished ranked 3rd in polls in 2005? I'm guessing no, and if PSU had been subjected to the same penalties they are now, starting in 2002, they wouldn't have even been eligible to play in the game.
They undoubtedly received an unfair advantage over all of the other schools in country who weren't covering up a major scandal.
I guess my problem will be how the NCAA continues to turn a blind eye to schools who are doing everything but coverig up child rape, and then insist they don't have the power to do anything. "We apologize to everyone with common sense, but we don't have the power to punish Cam Newton for his father selling him." Yet we find the power to punish everyone that had nothing to do with what happened to these kids.
I understand where you guys are coming from. But please tell me you can see the ridiculous hypocrisy here.
But you don't get mad about someone punishing a murderer because tey don't bother to do anything with a thief. You just get mad about the latter.
So what does the NCAA do if in fact everyone accused of lying to cover this up is found innocent? Not that I think they will, but doesn't the NCAA look a little ridiculous if a jury finds these people innocent after a fair and lengthy trial, while they just said, "We do what we want!"
It's a perjury charge. They're not standing trial for the cover-up but for knowingly lying about it to the grand jury.. They might very well be found innocent of that charge--it's very, very hard to get a guilty verdict in a perjury trial in the US (they'll say they didn't understand the grand jury's questions, they'll say they couldn't remember ever discussing Sandusky even though we, and now they, know it happened because they left a paper trail)--without it having any bearing on what the NCAA is actually acting on, the fact of the cover-up itself.
For that we've got, among other extremely damning evidence, Curley's e-mail informing Spanier (and now us) that Paterno had talked him out of going the authorities. What exactly do you think we're going to find out in the trial that will overturn that? Do you think the e-mail was forged evidence and didn't really happen?
Again, the cover-up went on for somewhere between 10 and 14 years, depending on where you start the clock. The criminal charge is for a single incident in that cover-up, lying to the grand jury about it. Innocence or guilt on that particular charge isn't really germane.
Are much higher in a court than, well, reality, I would think my answer would be "So the deep comprehensive investigation Penn State hired came out with information that caused sanctions that Penn State agreed to are now wrong?" Oh well, take the penalty for being stupid PSU. You obviously are having problems handling anything. (Though considering the guy was convicted of child molestation, there's testimony they knew something was wrong with him, and they STILL let him on campus to use the facilities until very recently, I'm not sure how they're going to be "absolved" as a program)
Penn State lacks the balls to give the NCAA the finger. All they have to do to give the NCAA the finger is withdraw from it. No penalties then. But the big mouths at PSU and elsewhere lack the integrity to push for this. Instead, they applaud when four PSU board members appeal to the NCAA against the other 28 members, and when a family that doesn't even have standing files a frivolous lawsuit.
There is lots wrong with the NCAA, but none of it applies to this case. PSU'ss administration requested an expidited settlement, got it, agreed to it, and agreed not to appeal it. The BoT endorsed the setllement. Its only the rats in the wainscotting that are making noise.
This is what happens when you vote incompetent people to your Board of Trustees. I'm sure some of them are good people, but several of them are in over their head.
The alumni elect 9 of the members of the 30 plus Penn State Board of Trustees. Guess who they elected: 4 alumni who played football at PSU and a booster who ran on the platform of granting Joe Paterno head football coach "emeritus status "posthumously. They elected Adam Taliaferro--a 30 year former football player who just graduated from law school. If anything is an indictment of the culture gone wrong at PSU, the results of the BOT election by their own alumni is it. PSU is now reaping the whirlwind.
PSU might had gotten some sympathy points from the public, if they worked to make the best of their situation. This in-fighting among their BoT will kill any possible sympathy.
That video disgusts me on so many levels. This guy was elected?
This is posturing and will go nowhere.
Universities can appeal sanctions handed down by the NCAA, but that is not what happened here. There was no investigation, there was the Freeh Report, commissioned by Penn State. The sanctions were agreed to by both parties, not handed down, and signed by the NCAA president and the Penn State president, who cleared with university counsel that he had the authority.
Had a consent decree not been signed, then the school would have been subjected to the standard enforcement process and could appeal that ruling if it found it unfair. But as the NCAA said last week when the Paterno family said it would appeal, the consent decree is not subject to an appeal. It is an agreement, a contract signed by both parties.
The trustees are wasting their time.
What a clown.
What are you talking about?
Consent decree management is what I do to pay the bills. Consent decrees are what happens after you have admitted to causing harm and are basically capitulating to the demands of the regulating body. Google Shine, McNeil or Novartis consent decree for some recent examples. If you tried to pull this bullshit on the FDA they would send out the Federal Marshalls and chain and lock the doors.
The NCAA should make a fucking example of Penn State and assert their authority. There isn't a lot of downside at this point. If PSU doesn't put these rogue trustees in check then the NCAA should play their full hand. This shit has gone on long enough.
This is a major university whose executives and board are in complete disarray. Frankly, it's an embarrassment to the Big Ten as well as college athletics.
I don't care about any other action being taken, but this school should absolutely not be a member of the Big Ten Conference, or the CIC.
According to the article, that idiot McCombie is acting on his own and not as a representative of the board. I would hope that the majority of the board would censure him (and the other clowns who signed on that suicidal appeal) and publicly oppose the appeal in the strongest possible terms. That might be unpopular in the short run, but dragging the school's name further into the mud would be much worse for them in the long run.
Penn State should be awarded its own, unique flavor of Kool-Aid. Or perhaps the faithful will await the return of Hale-Bopp over Beaver Stadium and they all will be taken up.
There's a better chance of joe ped rising from the dead and leading penn state out of the tunnel.
Seems like an awful idea. The very premise of the sanctions (as has been stated above) is that it was slightly less than what could have happened and Penn State essentially struck a deal to keep the football program going.
I wonder if there's a chance they get worse penalties under the same rules they're so upset the NCAA didn't follow. I so so so hope this happens
The NCAA was going to give them the DP. THAT was approved by the big powers of the NCAA.
saying we're at this point, but when does the embarrassment of keeping them in the conference become too great? If this is four trustees? Two more? One lawsuit more? They're doing everything they can to alienate themselves, and it might be time to reconsider the Big Ten punishments.
I've always thought that Penn State fans existed in their own little bubble of unreality when it came to their football program. They thought they would come in and dominate the Big 10. They thought Penn State was the most popular team in college football. Then, when that turned out not to be true, they decided that the Big 10 only cared about Michigan and Ohio State. That the refs were biased against them. That Lloyd deviously got 2 seconds added to the clock. And ultimately, that Penn State had a "Grand Experiment" to balance athletics and academics that was different from what most schools that are both academic and athletic powerhouses attempt to do.
Now, I think that unreality goes far further than just football, that it speaks to a weird sense of collective persecution, even in the current, horrible circumstances.
They do exist in their own little bubble. Seriously, these are the sorts of comments that are atypical on Black Shoe Diaries (the PSU blog).
"Not only has JoePa contributed more since he's been dead, he’s been PSU’s best leader since he’s been dead. Yeah, that awesome."
Not only are they delusional, but they have the unmitigated gall to declare anyone who disagrees with them about the NCAA's ruling a "hater" who is "just jealous" of Penn State "or something."
They actually believe that they are "fighting the good fight" and "taking a stand against tyranny." They're angry about "due process" but they're too stupid to understand that it doesn't apply in this instance.
They actually believe that if all of the major players in this are found not guilty that they somehow have a leg to stand on in legally pursuing a course of action against the NCAA (all the while ignoring that the one major player, Sandusky was already found guilty). I mean, a whole host of them actually believe that the federal court system will somehow come to their rescue and overturn the NCAA's penalties.
They are an embarrassment to the Big Ten.
I think you have a typo. Don't you mean typical instead of atypical?
I restructured the sentence from, "Seriously, this is a typical comment on Black Shoe Diaries (the PSU blog)," to what it is now. I must have only hit one backspace, turning it into "atypcial," rather than deleting the "a."
the NCAA is going to come out of this looking like some kind of strong, upright, organized body standing against PSU. PSU has to understand don't have a leg to stand on legally and/or morally.
The NCAA should reopen the case, look at all the facts, and then give them the four year death penalty that they were going to avoid.
I can't stand people that appeal when they're getting off easy. Teach them a lesson and slam them with what you'd threatened, after the appeal, and universities will think twice about such lunacy.
I haven't used the word FUBAR since high school, but I think it's time for a one-day comeback.
have the authority to appeal the decision in the 1st place?
Is that they have the authority to issue a pissy press release, and maybe to send a pissy letter to the NCAA.
That's about it.
They could bring an action against the Board itself, if they really think the Board violated its own by-laws when they approved the consent decree.
What they or their attorneys think they're doing by going after the NCAA is a mystery.
Here's an idea: let's not kick them out of the conference because that would be doing them a favor. Instead, let them play teams they'll have a serious talent disadvantage against. Kick them while they're down instead of letting them rebuild their program by competing in the Big East or some other shitty conference.
during their appeals process.
It's the NCAA's fault.
I was and still am in the "burn it down camp", but what I don't like is that there is no way for the school to get time off "for good behavior". That's probably a bad choice of words. Let me explain...
Here in the commonwealth, when a city needs to be declared bankrupt, such as Scranton or Harrisburg, it is put into conservatorship by the state. That means that it is run by people who (allegedly) will ignore the political entanglements to get the city functioning and on the proper path financially. I think, but am not certain, that Detroit is currently operating under this arrangement as well.
I would like to see the NCAA lay out a path for PSU to get back into the good graces of the NCAA/B10. I also believe the Commonwealth should either take the school into receivership or cut ties completely to make it a private school. I think that the NCAA/B10/Commonwealth could come up with a plan that would make any punishment for CURRENT people involved with the school/program more graduated.
No matter how much bluster, they aren't getting kicked out of the B10. There's too much money involved. But, just like a family member who has taken to drugs/drinking the B10 can lead the way to make sure this never happens again at one if its institutions while rehabilitating the school.
if the timeframe was longer than four seasons. If there were a twenty year bowl ban (a really, really long bond issue) it would make more sense to have a shortcut in the punishment, but what could Penn State possibly do in the next three years to earn a bowl/ten scholarships in the fourth?
I believe that as it has been doled out now they could do nothing and at the end of 4years things would be no different than if thye were in 100% compliance. That bothers me.
My son's girlfriend played in a soccer tournament there last weekend. On the way in and while I sat there I realized that there are going to be a lot of small businesses destroyed over these next few years. The mom & pop businesses who put everything into starting their own business will lose everything.
I don't want leniency, I want to see the process and culture changed which is something I don't think can happen unless the school goes into some sort of receivership. And if it does go that route, I'd like to see some benefit for them getting their shit togetther.
Could an MGolawyer explain the whole due process argument here?
Bottom line: there IS no due process argument.
Someone cited a case on due process and the NCAA earlier in this thread. This is the link to the case. It isn't terribly difficult for non-lawyers to understand.
Procedural due process (i.e. the right to a fair hearing/trial) must be met when the government takes life, liberty or property. Since the government has not done anything to Penn State they have no right to due process.
People may be trying to actually argue that the NCAA has procedures it ignored. However, it is unlikely the ordinary procedures used (notice of infranctons etc.) are mandatory for the NCAA to take action. Furthermore, what happened to Penn State was a settlement. They could have gone through the process at their own risk.
This is what i dont understand. If PSU truly feels they have been wronged cant they simply say we no longer wish to be part off the NCAA and stop playing sports? As I understand it the NCAA is a "club" for lack of a better term, and the "club" said if you want to still part of our club you've got to pay a shit-ton of money to us, stop being good at football for quite a while and lay low in the post season for about half a decade or more.
Don't like it? Leave the club! But if you still want to play sports with others in the club either pay up or shut up.
Jesus I hate PSU. I dislike MSU. I really dislike Notre Dame and I really REALLY dislike OSU but I HATE, HATE, HATE PSU now and probably always will.
IMO is kind of shameful for Penn State to appeal the sanctions. A loose translation..."We are sorry for what happened to those young boys, just not THAT sorry". They should just suck it up and take their lumps.
Also, the Paterno family needs to quit making dumbass statements and just let it go.
then drop the banhammer. Good riddance.
has Penn State always been like this?
Just since 1966.
as the Mayor vs. the City Council in Detroit politics..... Mayor looks out out for the best interest of the city and acccepts the Governors consent agreement.. then members of the council run around trying to sabotage the hell out of everything...... The President was looking out for the best interest of PSU by saying we accept the NCAA's version of a consent decree... now board of trustee members are saying... oh no..... (Clay Davis style... sheeeeeeeettttt)
Fair comparison, but no politics please...
Eh... I think reasonable minds can differ on whether there was any politics at all in that post. I sure didn't read it that way (ie just because it involves politicians does not make it politics).
Well The select minority of PSU BOT has thrown a hot flaming potato into the ongoing controversy. These diehard supporters of the football team, and presumably Joe Paterno, just don't know when to quit or leave well enough alone.
Since the governor sits on the BOT ex officio, he must not be happy about this, since he may receive collateral damage.
As for the rest of Penn State, the longer anyone resists, the more likely that NCAA may choose to revisit the disciplinary actions and increase them, including the death penalty!
It's like the four are saying, please sir, can I have some more!
Be careful for what you say, because you may get the attention you deserve.
Even before this latest development, the governor was already being blamed for somehow orchestrating the BoT's actions in firing Paterno, et al as part of a political vendetta:
Why did Tom Corbett herd the PSU Board of Trustees into rash firings of top administration and athletic department people? PA Governor Tom Corbett was a political enemy of PSU President Graham Spanier. Spanier publicly campaigned for Corbett's opponent, Dan Onorato, in the gubernatorial campaign. Corbett, upon being elected, immediately tried to cut PSU appropriations by 57%. His fellow-Republicans joined Democrats in overturning this blatant display of prejudice and injustice in the PA budget. But Corbett, as governor, had another shot with the Sandusky deal. He had an automatic PSU Trusteeship, and in that capacity was a ringleader in blaming and then causing the firing of both Spanier and Paterno. PSU Diehards could point to clear circumstantial evidence that Corbett conspired with his cronies to deliberately lie, and then take a bully pulpit, to extract revenge on a political enemy. There is much more evidence that this occurred compared with the contents of the Freeh Report convicting PSU, which we get to next.
The above is from a fan post on BSD (aka Black Shoe Diaries, but if they keep this shit up should probably be known as Bat Shit Delusions) from nine days ago. It has been recommended by 43 other posters, and in the 90 comments, nobody challenges the sanity of making the above claim, but some posters do point out factual errors in the "manifesto."As other posters here have noted, many PSU fans are looking everywhere to find conspiracies to protect their sacred JoePa. In their view it seems they are being persecuted by a villianous governor, an incompetent report author (Freeh), a power hungry NCAA president, and other universities who are jealous of Penn State's football and academic success. The only thing missing is tinfoil hats.
Black Shoe Diaries is a cesspool.
The fact that he states the PA was "deliberately lying," rather than, you know, doing his job and trying to get a conviction, speaks volumes. McQueary stated that he believed that he saw the child was being raped, and the prosecuting attorney is trying to argue that Sandusky was guilty of raping children, ergo, he used said testimony. You'd have to either be delusional, or an idiot to not understand this. Sadly, PSU's fanbase have proven themselves to be a toxic mixture of both.
The part they are missing in their conspiracy rant is that it is equally plausible that Corbett was NOT acting politically, but rather exactly the opposite. In other words, that an argument (with just as much factual background as the BSD post - ie none, it's an opinion and an inference based upon the facts that we now know) could be made that the prior Governor (a political ally of Spanier) prevented Corbett from acting on this while Corbett was Attorney General. It's easy to try to make the "it's political" argument against Corbett, as BSD does, but it's just as easy to make the argument that the previous governor (from the opposite party and a friend of Spanier) tied his hands, and that only after becoming Governor he had the authority to act on what he learned as AG.
That's it, enough fucking around. I say the NCAA should give them the 4 year death penalty. It's pretty clear that their fans have learned nothing from this ordeal, and now that extends all the way to the PSU board of trustees. The NCAA tried to be reasonable, but Penn State is just asking to get axed in the face at this point.
Please forgive this, my second post on the topic.
I can only imagine what the other B1G presidents and Delany must be thinking about this latest grandstanding by PSU board members.
Michigan set the example for transparency and the correct way to handle an NCAA issue.
OSU showed the wrong way to do it.
But PSU is showing the way circus clowns handle an NCAA sanction. I almost expect them to pile out of a tiny car honking bicycle horns and wearing floppy shoes.
The term, "not in our league," really makes sense here.
I suspect every high-level administrator at a B1G school has had his or her issues with rogue trustees.
While this doesn't make Penn State look good (IMO) to the general public, I doubt other Big Ten presidents think this reflects on PSU in particular. It reflects on board governance that they all face, which sometimes is a bit ugly.
Hypothetical question here. If, during the upcoming perjury trials, evidence is produced that shows without a shadow of a doubt that Joe knew about Sandusky and was an active part of the the cover-up, how do you think the boys and girls at BSD will react? Today they hang their denial hat upon the premise that the report was somehow flawed and because people werent under oath they were free to lie. But if it comes out in court, under oath, that their Lord and Savior Joe Paterno WAS protecting a pedophile to keep his blessed football program from looking bad - what then?
Then Governor Corbett set up a show trial. It wouldn't be the first time people have lied under oath.
Have you considered the alternate side of your argument? What if it came out the Freeh Report was absolutely incorrect? What would MGoBlog do then?
Then I would do the same thing I did when faced with a similar situation in regards to our coaching staff. I supported RR to the death and HATED the Hoke hire. That is until I saw the change in results on the field (evidence) and have changed my mind completely on the two coaches.
So, if it turned out that Freeh Report was absolutely incorrect then I would change my mind about the entire situation.
But I'd be real surprised if it turned out that the ex-FBI chief, with ZERO vested in the outcome of his investigation, was that wrong.
Nice try Jay.
it's very hard to successfully prosecute a perjury charge, and if the jury finds the defendents innocent, or even hangs, it's going to be taken in some circles as an exoneration of Paterno no matter what evidence is brought forth in the trial.
as an opinion site, doesn't have to do anything. That said, I think the $65M was well spent and the report accurate. PSU doesn't like it because it shows their athletic dept, football program and senior leadership were at fault.
It sounds to me like a guy with a huge ego wants to make even more of a stink in the stench filled Unhappy Valley. Maybe the agreement did need board approval. But, it's obvious that settlement was the way to go. It's almost always the way to go.
Now, I bet this guy is privately getting his ego stroked, in an attempt to get him to drop the complaint. If that does not work, the majority will crush the minority, and excommunicate them from the PSU family.
Just what they did not need: acrimonious divisiveness.
They are a disgrace to the Big Ten..Kick them out.
Does anyone recall the football stadium renovation and the uproar by that nut case about it? There was a vocal minority of people who were against the renovation and many petitioned the Regents about the issue. You know what each Regent whom was up for reelection that fall said about the issue? Absolutely fucking nothing. They posted on their FAQs that they did not want an athletics issue to be used as a litmus test, and thus intentionally did not post their individual opinion.
Michigan, it seems, has grown-ups in charge, while Penn St has a number of meat heads runnign the show.
I hope this appeal progresses because it is going to bring to light only more bad facts for JoePa and the PSU administration who conspired to cover up Sandusky's crimes. I'd love to be the prosecutor handling this case.
JoePa’s handwritten notes on Sandusky's retirement contract are probably the most damning piece of evidence in the Report. They show that as early as 1999, Paterno was sufficiently aware of Sandusky’s status as a likely pedophile to jot down a note to this effect while reviewing Sandusky’s retirement contract. Think about this scenario for a minute—JoePa is reading a longtime colleague’s retirement contract and the salient fact that occupies his mind when reading the clause about ongoing facility access is: “Hey, this guy may try to abuse Second Mile kids in our facilities, so we better not let him bring the kids here.” This concern is so significant to JoePa that he actually writes it down in the margin of the contract. This is a remarkable fact that would have been the centerpiece of any criminal prosecution of, or civil trial against, JoePa.
Anyone who doesn’t recognize the damning import of JoePa’s note is delusional. When you combine this fact with McQueary’s eyewitness report to JoePa in February 2001, no rational person could conclude that JoePa did not have a reasonable basis to report Sandusky as a possible pedophile in 2001. Despite the apparently commonly held belief among PSU fans that the evidence against JoePa was miniscule, rest assured that the evidence Freeh found would have been sufficient to uphold a criminal conviction of Paterno for failure to report likely child abuse. It's a shame JoePa didn't live long enough to be cross-examined under oath about his notations and the other undisputed facts in the record.
I think it would suck.
You know the bastards are guilty and you've got a paper trail a mile long that will let you prove it beyond a shadow of a doubt...except that the ringleader died before charges could be brought against him, PA's mandatory reporting law is as weak as can be and there's a chance it might be determined not even to apply to university presidents or athletic directors or football coaches, and even if it did the statute of limitations has run out, and now all you've got to charge them with is a single puny perjury count for lying to the Sandusky grand jury thirteen years after they started the coverup, a count you probably can't even make stick because you have to prove "specific intent to deceive" and they'll say they sure as hell didn't intend to deceive anyone but they didn't remember any of these e-mails or other evidence you've presented and it's a shame nobody came out with it before the grand jury proceedings because that would have jogged their memories and they would have been better able to respond to the questions....