A Look into PSU sanctions

The NCAA Bylaws and organizational documents are not fluid? Odd, I thought they just changed something about social media contacts a few weeks ago.

A difficult, uncertain or unpopular option does not represent an absence of options.

So, what options, off of the top of my head do they have in the way of this decision?
They could have opposed the 'AA's jurisdiction to act. They refused.
They could have argued, publicly and privately, that the 'AA's sanctions were so severe and unprecedented as to be unjust. Instead, they signed off on them, even before they were publicly announced.
They could have refused to agree to forego the normal procedures of due process, and required the 'AA do their own investigation / LOI, time to prepare a defense - if only in an attempt to mitigate their penalties - rather than simply agreeing to allow the Freeh Report to supplant these processes, in their entirety. They didn't, and readily agreed to forego all of that, and more.
Finally, they could simply withdraw their membership, as it remains a completely voluntary organization.

It's an inconvenient truth that despite your wishes / hopes / desires / preferences that they would have opposed the 'AA's actions in this matter - they didn't. And in fact, not only agreed to them, but readily did so. Likely, you see this more clearly than they do.

And you believe that PSU would cease to exist outside of its 'AA membership?

I agree that they are between "a rock and a hard place" to some extent. Perhaps they shouldn't have initiated a 14 year cover-up that sought to conceal the activities of a staff member who was raping kids in their facilities, and which extended - quite literally - to the highest levels of the University administration. In fact, "not doing that" was likely their single best and most easily employed means of preventing the penalties which they now face. And, as luck would have it, all of this could have been avoided by the deployment of an uber-simple three-step process:

Step 1: Remind JoePa that he is not god.
Step 2: Find nearest phone.
Step 3: Tell them about allegations against Sandusky.

Actions have consequences. Not all are as simple or fair as we would like for them to be, for sure, but the consequences do result - and sometimes there is a lot of collateral damage, when it arrives.

Sorry, I guess?

As they have had a bevy of readily available options, I agree that you failed.

Visit NCAA.org - they spell out the Bylaws which they determined were broken, their rationale for having arrived at those conclusions, and even cite the specific Bylaws in question.

I honestly don't know what I could possibly add, beyond that.

See above.

I think we're making headway, here, at long last.

First, you do realize that the American judicial system is not, in fact, the only means of remedy or recourse available, right? Some stuff is actually handled - quite well, actually - well beyond the walls of a courtroom.

Second, you do realize that the 'AA receives its authority from it's members, and has absolutely no connection to the American judicial system, whatsoever, right? So, the 'AA doesn't have to penalize either an individual or a program when one person is fined for jaywalking, or murder. Concurrently, neither does the local DA have to take a case to the grand jury simply because the 'AA determined that a prospective student-athlete received an impermissable benefit from making a copy in the football offices. See? Separate.

I'll close this section on the rest of your scenarios by simply saying: slippery slope.

See above

So, you believe that any action taken must arise from the judicial system, or can only be seen as being unjust, unwarranted or is otherwise without authority and/or merit?

Gladly noted.

Only members of the judiciary have sufficient experience to determine things.

Got it.

I believe that it was the totality of their hagiographic culture which is the second most culpable entity in all of this (behind Sandusky, himself), and think their sharing in this punishment is exactly as the 'AA intended, and rightfully so.

We can disagree here.

We've covered all of this (i.e. only the courts can or should decide things). Forgive me, but I'm on my phone.

 

As a tip of the hat to VFBill and Float - I think that they made a poor choice, given those options.

This will only loom, fester and become more pervasive over the next four years. Better to just shut it down and begin anew in 4 years.

 

Yeah..I don't know. 2 year death penalty, I agree. 4? I don't know. And, the fines must have been in excess of $100 million.

 

PSU athletics would very well cease to exist, yes. Their sports would more or less become intramurals. I was quite clear that PSU could work to change the NCAA, and very clearly distinguished between the NCAA itself, and the ruling. Much like I clearly stated PSU athletics, not PSU overall. Again, what option short of leaving does PSU have to seek relief against the ruling?

If you believe TT's previous post, their options was this, a 4 year death penalty or leaving. Which of these options is a viable option? None. Who would they appeal to? The NCAA. Who would then decide the appeal? The NCAA.

They were not given options, they were given notice.

Yes, clearly in your mind those players affected by this decision, ya know, the ones that did no wrong, clearly they should have not allowed those things to occur. Oh wait, they didn't.

There is a difference between unavoidable collateral damage, avoidable collateral damage and smite. This is both avoidable and smite.

I'm sorry that you think that having your **** cut off or murdering your wife are a bevy of options when instructed at gun point to do one or the other.

Page 2 of the document you reference lists a set of bylaws the NCAA feels were violated. At any given time, all of those bylaws are violated by every major program. The difference is severity, not principal.

All of those options are backed by the American judicial system. The NCAA is a monopoly. They have complete control, very little oversight and the full backing of too many people that think simply because something is "right" that they should also have the power to act.

Everything the NCAA does is governed by the judicial system, rooted mostly in contract law.

The NCAA laughs at such a charge. They have already reserved the right to act in similar and not so similar situations, and make further charges against individuals. What you erroneously call a slippery slope fallacy, the NCAA calls planning. I'm glad to see their reach extends all the way to opinion correction. I'm sure you are no doubt pleased.

Yes. However, one caveat, novel should be handled by judicial and judicial alone, to establish precedent.

 

I feel like a nitwit when I read debates between people here. Oh wait...

 

a death penalty is probably better than watching yoru team be terrible for a decade. trust me i know.

 

I think you recover faster from the current penalties than
a four year death penalty. You completely have to rebuild a team fr nothing...having to recruit kids that havent seen you play a game on TV since they were in 7th grade.

A one year and probably a two year death penalty are better than what they got. 4 years and over a 100 million fine on top of no incoming athletic revenue. I think there is a reason they negotiated.

 

i dont' for a second believe they were seriously considering a 4 year death penalty.

 

It would be hard to believe. Probably hard ball. But the 'decision' of a 4 year death penalty was definitely handed down by Emmert privately. Then Penn St. came back to negotiate in earnest.

 

it was a way to get them to come to the table so that they wouldnt' sue later.

 

That would make sense.

But if a four year death penalty is better, why offer that to bring them to the table? Why not start with the current sanctions? Even more motivation, no?

 

oh i'm saying a 2 year dealth penalty is better in many ways. 4 year probably not. but lets not forget the hundreds of millions of football revenue that would be lost with a 4 year death penalty. i doubt the university would want that even if in the end it would be better for the program.

 

The fans or the program?

I just think a 4 year death penalty would be bone crushing
for everyone. Imagine how long it would take to start fro
scratch. It's worse than moving up from 1AA. Granted, PSU has the fan base, donors, and more money - but they would be strapped for cash after four years of no revenue and trying to keep the AD afloat

 

4 years is out of site out of mind. 2 years not so much.

 

In direct response to your last question (I apologize, as I ordinarily do attempt to take them in order of their appearance): I listed several options that they had at their ready disposal, all (save one) that did not require a withdrawal of membership, and which at least offered the promise of the opportunity for relief (as they chose not to explore any of them, we can't be sure as to how in/effective those efforts might/not have been). You may not like that they didn't elect to pursue any of those options which I previously listed, but they were available to be exercised or at least explored, nonetheless.

I understand what you are asking - but as I disagree with the premise of the question, namely, that you can somehow magically separate the college from its athletics or the 'AA from it's ruling. And as you insist that I separate the two (despite the fact that they are absolutely inseparable) no viable answer to your question is possible, at least within the bounds of reason.

And I fail to understand why I should agree with your repeated insistence that simply withdrawing from the 'AA was somehow not an entirely valid and available option to them. It is a voluntary organization. They could withdraw at any time. That they have sustained their membership is important, in and of itself. By doing so, they have not only agreed to accept these penalties, but in turn, only further affirms my assertion in their belief that the 'AA not only had the rightful authority and jurisdiction to do impose them, but unquestionably so. If that is not true, then what is the only recourse left to your argument?

That they believe that the NCAA neither had the rightful authority nor the necessary jurisdiction to impose these sanctions....and yet they've chose to accept them, regardless of these foundational objections?

And if their athletic teams were to become more or less intramural......what? I wonder if there are any colleges who have a similar "intramural-only" type of athletic teams, and still manage to somehow thrive?

That wasn't the only two options which they were given (you failed to list the one that they actually accepted, and has been imposed).

Why are none of the options I previously listed of suitable quality?

If you're asking me, instead, "What could they have done to escape the penalties, or to greatly mitigate their severity and scope after it was proven that the highest levels of their university colluded to invoke a 14-year cover-up of a child rapist, and which allowed him to not only continue - but to expand - his criminal and reprehensible behavior - and on their property, no less."

Then I would respond, thankfully, that no such solution existed. And that's because they deserved every ounce of it, and more. And got it.

When faced with the unprecedented and severe nature of the punishments which they were facing, what attempt to prevent or mitigate them would have been too extreme, or whose chances of meeting with even marginal or transient success were too remote even to be attempted? I don't know how you would have handled it, Float, but personally, I would have exhausted all possible measures, beforehand. That is, unless I truly believed that the penalties - while severe - were just.

It was the hagiographic culture of Penn State which gave JoePa the greatest (perhaps, "only"?) strength to wield the amount of enormous, unwavering and unchecked power which he later employed for his own selfish and despicable use. Had he not enjoyed such overwhelming support from the entirety of Penn State players, alums, fans, students, faculty, etc. - none of this would have happened beyond reporting Sandusky immediately after the first allegations were made known to the university President and BoT members. Why wasn't it? Because Joe said not to report it, that's why. By what authority was he operating or had invoked in making such a determination? By that which everyone had naively, blind-fully and lavishly heaped upon him, and at every available possibility for so many numbers of years. To go against JoePa in State College, PA was to fight god himself - and everyone not only knew it, but celebrated that fact. Well, there is sometimes a cost to that, Float.

And for these reasons, I do not agree with your assertions (no matter how oft-repeated) that these same people are somehow now supposed to be seen as "innocents" and completely undeserving of similarly sharing in the suffering of the University, itself.

We disagree.

An unnecessary and inaccurate mischaracterization of my position. But if it gives you some needed emotional relief and safe harbor, I'll allow it.

First, I do not believe that, "At any given time, all of those bylaws are violated by every major program". In fact, I find it to be absurd. However, if you can you offer positive proof of how every major program has done so, I will relent the point. Given that it is not only so widespread, but occurs with such (alleged) frequency, you should have no problem finding recent examples for each major (D-1?) program. I look forward to reviewing it and in apologizing to you, publicly, once such a suitable list is received.

I'm not sure what you mean, here, exactly. Do yo intend to say that because everyone violates the same bylaws as the NCAA cited in the PSU ruling....that PSU shouldn't have been punished? Or perhaps that everyone else should be, too?

I've never seen anyone pull off the ol' two-wrongs-make-a-right argument, but if anyone here is smart enough to do it, it's you. So, I'm looking forward to learn how you'll accomplish it, where so many others have failed, albeit once someone slows it down and explains it to me, that is.

By "backed by" do you mean, "While they may share some similarities, they are for all intents and purposes entirely separate from one another"? If so, then yes, we agree.

Both the NAIA and the federal government disagree with your assertion that the NCAA is a monopoly, as do its members.

They have those authorities because their members voluntarily gave it to them, and agreed to abide by their rulings.

Do you mean that everything the NCAA does is subject to the judicial system? I guess that is correct. But it's also just as equally subjected to institutions of legislation, incurs taxes, is not exempt from the principals of gravity, etc. So...it's not uniquely all-encompassing to the judiciary, alone.

I am only pleased that we have had a fair comparing of ideas, and that I am now so bored with this thread as to leave it alone.

 

Yes, exactly correct.

The University would survive. The athletic department would not. I think the University would do very well for itself, but clearly the University does not think it worth survivng without the athletic department, and are willing to do anything to make that so. I think the fact that they covered up child molestation for so many years should drive that point home. PSU will do anything, ANYTHING, to keep its athletic department. Even if it isn't morally right, or justified. I don't think you can cite any evidence contrary to that statement. And that is why I said, just above "yes, exactly correct."

I said "this." This, being the exact option we are discussing. I can recap for you, "their options was this (the one we are discussing), a 4 year death penalty (the one Emmert used to push them to the one they accepted) or leaving (an option they would never consider)."

Clear enough?

I'm not saying any of that. I'm saying the NCAA should not have the power to put them in such a position. This is way less about PSU and this specific instance than the overreaching and all powerful NCAA.

And what avenue would those who dissent have to pursue? None. That is why you punish those directly responsible for throning King Joe and leave the serfs alone.

The entirety of this stance is in line with one that says the people of the United States of America are to blaim for all government action, and therefore any harm that comes to the people, directly, is acceptable because, we the people, allowed our government to get out of control.

Let's examine Page 2:

Let's look at Tennessee under #1. 2.1 says that the institution is responsbile for all actions of the individuals engaged in promoting athletics interests. Which would be Dooley, in this case. So now we've established a chain. We conclude that if Dooley has done something wrong, that it is a failure to value and uphold institutional integrity.

So now we move to #2. 10.01.1 "Individuals employed by (or associated with) a member institution to administer, conduct or coach intercollegiate athletics and all participating student-athletes shall act with honesty and sportsmanship at all times."

Using Tennessee as an example, I think you are aware of a few less than "honest" things done by a player or two in the last few months.

So now we move to #3. Positive moral role models. Whether you believe some things have been covered up, as of late, or "swept away," particularly in regards to certain items being stolen... I don't think that proves a "postive moral role model."

You may, I don't know. Dooley is by all accounts the least likely to be involved in anything underhanded, and yet, issues with his administration can be found that go against these "values." And though you may say it a weak association, that is the rub. These are all subjective, save a few of the more pointed things in 10.1. The issue becomes when does the NCAA act on subjective? You may say that is a slippery slope, and so be it, but that is how the NCAA operates, subjectively.

Not exactly. I'm saying that by allowing, or even accepting, NCAA punishment in this respect, you have allowed them to move into an area they should not have the ability to move into. They are operating on subjective evalution, with non-standard punishment. In other words, they have too much power, and it has grown substantially with this ruling.

And I'm not saying two wrongs make a right, I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right. What happened at Penn State was a wrong. Allowing the NCAA this much authority on the matter is also wrong. I find that the punishment they handed down to be wrong. I don't find that not punishing Penn State, by the NCAA, is wrong, given that they will be punished in a court of law, and those responsible will be punished, in a court of law. And that would be right.

Take all that for what it is worth, if nothing more than another view.

 

Report has Penn State's O'Brien saying the school might change its uniforms as soon as this season

Report has Penn State's O'Brien saying the school might change its uniforms as soon as this season - Yahoo! Sports

 

Ah...I guess I'd try anything too.

 

Well if they had shut it down for 4 years they would have probably come up with the Jerry Sandusky Center for Sensitivity!

 

Assless chaps?