Miscalculations? kids were raped so he could protect his football record. What don't you get?
PSU Trustees say they are appealing NCAA sanctions
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).