Freeh Report

[Canned Goods n Ammo]

If I'm reading him correctly, PSU is almost irrelevant to the discussion. He feels universities and "big time" sports are incompatible. A death penalty for intercollegiate sports as we know them seems to be his logical conclusion.

Right, this is an systemic problem, not a specific problem.

Jerry Sandusky didn't ruin Penn State. The culture of athletics and money being the #1 priority ruined Penn State. We know that it's still happening at other schools (as we speak).

The NCAA can show off and tell everybody about how tough they are, but the system and culture of big time college athletics (esp. football) is still about winning and $, and the NCAA is allowing for that.

There will be another "scandal", and we will all acted shocked... but we probably shouldn't.

People with absolute power sometimes cut corners (even immoral ones) in the name of power, performance and $.

[Golden Avalanche]

I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this.   Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial?    If not, who conducted their investigation?    Where is their report?    If they have done one, let's see it.     Did Penn St get to respond?      The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves. 

By all indications, the NCAA basically seemed not to want to spend the time investigating on their own dime once the Freeh report was issued. The two problems with this are obvious: 1) why dole out punishment outside your jurisdiction based on someone else's research?, and 2) why take into account a report that started as a biased reflection of the BoT's fear that never interviewed Sandusky, any Paterno, Spanier, Curley, McQueary, etc.?

It opens a wide chasm of interjection. In essence, the NCAA is punishing a school for its moral/ethical vagaries but not for the clear violation of NCAA rules. If that is to be the case going forward, with the path they laid today, the NCAA could step in the next time Marquette mishandles a sexual assault allegation. If you claim a moral obligation to report child rape, you must also claim moral obligation to report adult rape.

But will they continue with the moral policing and punishment based on no rules violations being committed or is this a one time grandstanding that they think will show the world just how strong their muscles are? I think it's just so clownish.

[Chicago_inferiority_complexes]

It opens a wide chasm of interjection. In essence, the NCAA is punishing a school for its moral/ethical vagaries but not for the clear violation of NCAA rules. If that is to be the case going forward, with the path they laid today, the NCAA could step in the next time Marquette mishandles a sexual assault allegation.

If Marquette covers up the serial rape of minors by one of its staff, I'm happy to have Marquette have the same penalties apply to the school.

If you claim a moral obligation to report child rape, you must also claim moral obligation to report adult rape.

Is the entire university bureaucracy covering up the rapes in your hypothetical scenario?

- Edit: I suck at HTML, apparently.

[Aughnanure]

JP's last NCAA D I win vs Wisconsin in 97.

And His QB?....Mike McQueary.

[MerrittsMustache]

I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this.   Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial?    If not, who conducted their investigation?    Where is their report?    If they have done one, let's see it.     Did Penn St get to respond?      The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves. 

The university has accepted the Freeh Report as the truth. Therefore, the NCAA does not need to do its own investigation.

[GGGG]

By all indications, the NCAA basically seemed not to want to spend the time investigating on their own dime once the Freeh report was issued. The two problems with this are obvious: 1) why dole out punishment outside your jurisdiction based on someone else's research?, and 2) why take into account a report that started as a biased reflection of the BoT's fear that never interviewed Sandusky, any Paterno, Spanier, Curley, McQueary, etc.?

They never interviewed those people because they were either indicted or witnesses to a trial and the DA asked them not to interview them.  They accepted the Freeh report....PSU accepted it...the sanctions were issued and PSU agreed to them.

[GGGG]

I'm not defending PSU or anyone there involved with this.   Having said that, is the NCAA going off of the Freeh report along witht he results of the Sandusky trial?    If not, who conducted their investigation?    Where is their report?    If they have done one, let's see it.     Did Penn St get to respond?      The NCAA may have entered into some murky ethical waters themselves. 

They issued a letter.  PSU responded.  The NCAA skipped their usual process (with their Exeuctive Committee's approval), and PSU agreed with the penalties.

[Golden Avalanche]

If Marquette covers up the serial rape of minors by one of its staff, I'm happy to have Marquette have the same penalties apply to the school.

Is the entire university bureaucracy covering up the rapes in your hypothetical scenario?

- Edit: I suck at HTML, apparently.

Perhaps they do. Last year's allegations were punted on by the Head Coach, Athletic Director, and President. What Emmert's power play asserts is that he could step in and punish the program based upon their lack of morals rather than their lack of following the rules. That's an awfully gray line to be crossing.

Remember, this is the same organization that found no punishment for a recent college football program whose star quarterback was publicly shopped to the highest bidder simply because there wasn't a bylaw they could find to accuse them of breaking. Yet, with no bylaws broken by PSU, they easily found time to punish.

[Golden Avalanche]

They never interviewed those people because they were either indicted or witnesses to a trial and the DA asked them not to interview them.  They accepted the Freeh report....PSU accepted it...the sanctions were issued and PSU agreed to them.

Exactly. Which is completely antithetical to their entire process of taking an excruciatingly long time to investigate. Who needs due process when you only want to listen to one side? Paints this more as an Emmert play to be front and center and act as a moral beacon in the corrupt crevasse that is college athletics.

[GGGG]

Exactly. Which is completely antithetical to their entire process of taking an excruciatingly long time to investigate. Who needs due process when you only want to listen to one side? Paints this more as an Emmert play to be front and center and act as a moral beacon in the corrupt crevasse that is college athletics.

The NCAA is acting both without due process and outside its authority...BUT it is not a government entity, it is an organization freely participated in, and as such it has every right to break due process and extend its authority if the members comprising it authorized it--which they did.

[The Process]

The NCAA is acting both without due process and outside its authority...BUT it is not a government entity, it is an organization freely participated in, and as such it has every right to break due process and extend its authority if the members comprising it authorized it--which they did.

It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA, in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.

They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.

If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty.  If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them.  Let their hubris be their own demise.

[🏀]

It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA, in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.

They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.

If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty.  If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them.  Let their hubris be their own demise.

Yeah. These guys are ridiculous. Erickson reportly made a plea bargain to avoid the death penalty, and if some trustees and the Paterno family wants to fight it, then they don't under stand the point the NCAA was trying to make.

Put the program to sleep.

[GGGG]

It's funny you said this, as now four of PSU's trustees have filed an appeal to the NCAA, in which one of their points is how the NCAA acted without due process.

They're also vowing a federal lawsuit, too.

If these members of the board of trustees is somehow successful in saying that Erickson "lacked the legal authority" to agree to the sanctions without the board's approval, I vote for the 4 Year Death Penalty.  If PSU wants to get into a big legal fight, then the NCAA needs to destroy them.  Let their hubris be their own demise.

The problem is they don't have standing.  The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards.  If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.

[Rubie Q]

The problem is they don't have standing.  The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards.  If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.

I don't understand what they'd sue the NCAA for, probably because this is an area of law I'm unfamiliar with. They're a member of a voluntary organization. If they don't like the penalties imposed by that voluntary organization, isn't the remedy to leave the NCAA?

[GGGG]

I don't understand what they'd sue the NCAA for, probably because this is an area of law I'm unfamiliar with. They're a member of a voluntary organization. If they don't like the penalties imposed by that voluntary organization, isn't the remedy to leave the NCAA?

A couple of the PSU trustees are elected by the populace.  They are doing this to appeal to the PSU masses who feel that the penalties were unjustified.

[mu03eng]

The problem is they don't have standing.  The collective board reaffirmed Erickson's decision afterwards.  If they have a problem with what Erickson did, they should get rid of him.

They didn't reaffirm anything, they decided to yell at him and then not take a vote and let everyone assume they reaffirmed it.

They have standing, the PSU bylaws clearly state that PSU president has to have board(budget committee at a minimum) approval on contracts that will exceed $50,000 in nature.  That wasn't done, so Erickson doesn't have the ability to sign the consent decree.  The board also never voted to accept the Freeh report, the board president put out a statement accepting the results, but its not the same thing.

From a PR standpoint this is a bad idea, they should have just taken their medicine and moved on.  Its ultimately high risk-high reward, maybe the get the penalties off, if they get it overturned the NCAA could always come back at them with the death penalty.  But even that is muted somewhat, because if they have to follow the bylaws the NCAA can only give them a max of 2 years and only if they have a way to prove they are a repeat offender.

This is where the NCAA getting involved, while making sense from a PR and ethical standpoint puts themselves on shaky grounds.  I also think the whole 4 year death penalty thing is air cover for Erickson and the loyalists on the board so they can say say "we fought and got the best deal we could lets all just move along".  A 4 year death penalty is a clear violation of the bylaws, whereas the current punishment is merely not in the bylaws.

[mu03eng]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/mensbasketball/bigeast/story/2012-07-05/syracuse-findings-bernie-fine-investigation/56041250/1

Apparently back on July 5th, during the run up to the Freeh Report release, Syracuse quietly released their own internal investigation into Bernie Fine's alleged rapes.

Star-divide
In the report it was found that Syracuse:

1) Treated the matter internally solely as a HR issue.

2) Immediately contacted legal counsel, who did not advise them to report it as a crime.

3) Had a two hour interview with Davis over his actions. The report stated that this was insufficient given the nature of the accusations.

5) Was given witness names and did not follow up with said victims.

6) Failed to properly provide for the safety of the young men under their protection.

Curious to see if the NCAA takes out the new powers out for a spin on this one too or if they will look the other way.  Based on the direction the media wind is blowing I'm guessing nothing will be said or done.

[GGGG]

They didn't reaffirm anything, they decided to yell at him and then not take a vote and let everyone assume they reaffirmed it.

They have standing, the PSU bylaws clearly state that PSU president has to have board(budget committee at a minimum) approval on contracts that will exceed $50,000 in nature.  That wasn't done, so Erickson doesn't have the ability to sign the consent decree.  The board also never voted to accept the Freeh report, the board president put out a statement accepting the results, but its not the same thing.

But the Executive Committee did accept it, and the bylaws allow the Committee to act on behalf of the Board in between meetings.

[mu03eng]

But the Executive Committee did accept it, and the bylaws allow the Committee to act on behalf of the Board in between meetings.

Not true as far as I'm aware, the Board president accepted it, but there were never any reports of the Exec committee meeting let alone approving.  Besides if they meet in secret that would be a violation of Pennsylvania's sunshine laws.

[GGGG]

Not true as far as I'm aware, the Board president accepted it, but there were never any reports of the Exec committee meeting let alone approving.  Besides if they meet in secret that would be a violation of Pennsylvania's sunshine laws.

I do not believe that the Executive Committee is necessarily beholden to sunshine laws, and if so, can retroactively reaffirm any decisions anyway.

[mu03eng]

I do not believe that the Executive Committee is necessarily beholden to sunshine laws, and if so, can retroactively reaffirm any decisions anyway.

I believe you are incorrect on that.  That was why Paterno was fired twice.  First time they didn't have a quorum and were in violation of the sunshine law when they voted to fire Paterno, so they had to hold a conference call 6 days later to "officially" fire him or face legal ramifications.

[GGGG]

I believe you are incorrect on that.  That was why Paterno was fired twice.  First time they didn't have a quorum and were in violation of the sunshine law when they voted to fire Paterno, so they had to hold a conference call 6 days later to "officially" fire him or face legal ramifications.

That is what I meant by "retroactively reaffirm."

[mu03eng]

That is what I meant by "retroactively reaffirm."

Understood, I just don't think based on what I saw that they even did that with the consent decree.

All in all this is somewhat definition of is type of stuff....right, wrong, or indifferent there is a legal angle to be played that has some possibility of "success".  However the implications of that success could have enormous implications in college sports going forward, so was all of this really worth if for the NCAA and is it really worth it now for Penn State.  I think there is a strong law of unintended consequences here that could boomerang on the NCAA.

[GGGG]

Understood, I just don't think based on what I saw that they even did that with the consent decree.

Well, you were correct....and it looks like they are going to do so on Sunday.

http://live.psu.edu/story/60657