Comment On One Aspect Of The PSU Sanctions

[bilsu]

One of the purposes of a University Endowment Fund is to provide academic scholarships out of the earnings on the endowment investments. I am not saying Penn St should not be punished, but the $60 million dollar penalty hurts future students, who had nothing to do with the scandal.

[Marqevans]

All the punishments hurt the students. The penalties should be in the form of firings and civil suits of those who did not act to protect the students from a predator.

[🏀]

I think some very important points are getting missed and mslabeled in an attempt by the NCAA to come accross as the "cops" or the good guys here. The crimes committed by Sandusky are henious and cruel and should go punished and prosecuted as they have been. He has fnally been stopped and can do no more harm to anyone, but the harm already done can not be "undone."

The real crimes here are the inability of the people in power at the university to act a long time ago. I don't think they actually acted to protect the football program, at all. Certainly they delayed bad publicity on it and themselves. I think they acted, or didn't act out of fear for themselves, the unknown, the fear of being wrong, the fear of being right, the fear of Sandusky, the fear of not really knowing what to do and how to go about it. This is not making their actions right by any means, at all.

Victims are talking now but in how many cases, with other people and vicitms, have the vicitms not spoken out until very much later?? Would they have testified against Sandusky then or even come forward? Remember that Sandusky was a pretty revered guy in the PSU commnuity, as well. Many of the vicitms held Sandusky in high regard and may not have sought to prosecute him then....

The university and it's board of trustees should be punished hard or even harder. Criminal charges are and should be pending against those with ANY iota of information or influence or official responsibility at the time. Paterno's legacy will be irreparably harmed but he can not defend himself or offer any insight into his actions today. We know some but not all he knew or thought.

The current players ARE paying a price for "others" cirmes!! The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit. The program WAS run above board, or so it seems, noted by many in the business then and now. The current players and staff ARE paying a price for the "lack of institutional control" of others.

Why take away bowl games? Limit recruiting? The reputation, stigma of the crimes, change in coaching staff and heavy negative recruiting by other programs will certainly take a toll on the future of Penn State football without "official" santions.

I believe the fines are just, as well as the establishment of the use of the funds for the protection of abused children and the like. Even raise the fines!! Make annual, future, fines permanent!! Like an endowment. No cap or ceiling. It's never over for the abused kids, why should it be for the school if you want to make a point.

BUT. Don't cripple the program by limiting grants-in-aid. Don't drive off current players. Enough other changes will do that. How do you expect the school to come up with the funds to PAY the fines??? Tax revenues? You live in Pa? If this was Marquette would tuition be raised to cover lost athletic revenues, which are substantial? How would future students families like that?

The football program was financially successful. Tax the hell out of it, don't kill it. The "death penalty" or severe actions against the team and players should only be invoked if it was an actual beneficiary of bad deeds. The adminstration made some bad decisions for sure, should be fired and prosecuted and punished as a result and example.

I am not a Penn State alumni, fan or supporter by any means, but let's look a bit deeper in the actions and reactions we take. Knee jerk and "good" publicity reactions may not be the answers either, at all. What do we really need to do? Not forget for sure and that may be the biggest legacy to leave here.........

Did you read the  Freeh Report?

[GGGG]

some one posted earlier about the size of the university's endowment ($1.3 Billion?)

It is doubtful that the University's endowment may be used to pay the fine.  By law, an endowment generally may be invested and only the annual earnings may be paid to support a program that the donor designates.  There may be some wriggle room with some of the funds, but don't be mislead by this.  Endowments are usually not very fungible. 

[ATWizJr]

It is doubtful that the University's endowment may be used to pay the fine.  By law, an endowment generally may be invested and only the annual earnings may be paid to support a program that the donor designates.  There may be some wriggle room with some of the funds, but don't be mislead by this.  Endowments are usually not very fungible. 

by law?

[Canadian Dimes]

THANK GOD THE BIG EAST DID NOT OFFER THEM A SPOT DECADES AGO!!

[Chicos' Buzz Scandal Countdown]

The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit.

Thanks for a thorough post. About all of your points are well thought out. I've heard a popular argument that PSU did not gain a competitive advantage throughout this ordeal (not sure if this is an argument you're making here as well).

The school hid information which, if revealed, would have resulted in the firing of a top coach and perhaps head coach as early as 1998. This seems to me a "competitive advantage" just the same as Ohio State gained a competitive advantage by covering up serious infractions of their star players... as well as protecting their revenues.

[warriorchick]

  by law?

Um, yeah.  Contract law, if anything.  Most, if not all, endowment funds have a lot of detailed rules on how it can and cannot be spent.  Most donors want to make sure that their money is used in the manner that they intended.  Who would donate to the Blue and Gold fund, for example, if the BOT could arbitrarily decide to waste that money on, say, comfy new chairs for their boardroom, or nursing scholarships?

I suppose it is possible that a judge could decide to nullify that contract in extreme cases, but I would think that most courts would hold that pretty sacrosanct, much in the way that you can't touch a person's retirement savings when suing them civilly.

[GGGG]

Yes, endowment management for charities is governed by a series of state laws.  Such laws may superceded by carefully worded agreements with donors however.  Pennsylvania (surprise, surprise) has a someone unique endowment management law, but it still has the basics.  

warriorchick....contract law only comes into play when these donor agreements supercede the state law.

For instance, Marquette cannot take $100,000 for an engineering scholarship and spend it to build a dentistry building.  Besides being completely unethical, the State of Wisconsin could file a civil suit against the University.

[warriorchick]

Yes, endowment management for charities is governed by a series of state laws.  Such laws may superceded by carefully worded agreements with donors however.  Pennsylvania (surprise, surprise) has a someone unique endowment management law, but it still has the basics.  

warriorchick....contract law only comes into play when these donor agreements supercede the state law.

For instance, Marquette cannot take $100,000 for an engineering scholarship and spend it to build a dentistry building.  Besides being completely unethical, the State of Wisconsin could file a civil suit against the University.

Thanks, Sultan, I know you are the expert on this type of thing   

[GGGG]

You are welcome.  The one thing that is interesting is that only recently has the donor had any standing in the courts.  For instance, if you were the donor to the engineering scholarship above, you could not sue to the University for using it for dentistry.  Only the State could bring suit.  However those rules are changing at both the state level and through court precedent.

[MerrittsMustache]

The current players ARE paying a price for "others" cirmes!! The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit. The program WAS run above board, or so it seems, noted by many in the business then and now. The current players and staff ARE paying a price for the "lack of institutional control" of others.

One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.

[Benny B]

One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.

Exactly... the whole implication here is that the primary reason the parties engaged in a cover-up was to protect the football program and coaching staff, not the university.  That's the link that gives the NCAA jurisdiction, because all of this was apparently carried out in the interests of athletics.

[mu03eng]

One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.

I'm breaking my vow of silence.  They did report Sandusky in 98, the police investigated, a psychologist(John Seasock) conducted an examination and found him not to be a pedophile but someone with "boundary issues"(whatever that means).  The prosecutor(Ray Gricar) was given all the evidence and information and declined to prosecute.  So your first premise is out the window.

Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment?  Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.

So what would be the point of the cover-up exactly?  In fact given the power struggle going on at Penn State at the time(leadership wanted Paterno out, Paterno didn't want to go) this is the very wedge that would have allowed the leadership to remove Paterno.

I think if there was a cover up it came much later, around 2010/2011 when everyone started to put the pieces together and went holy shnikes this is going to look bad.

[MerrittsMustache]

I'm breaking my vow of silence.  They did report Sandusky in 98, the police investigated, a psychologist(John Seasock) conducted an examination and found him not to be a pedophile but someone with "boundary issues"(whatever that means).  The prosecutor(Ray Gricar) was given all the evidence and information and declined to prosecute.  So your first premise is out the window.

Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment?  Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.

So what would be the point of the cover-up exactly?  In fact given the power struggle going on at Penn State at the time(leadership wanted Paterno out, Paterno didn't want to go) this is the very wedge that would have allowed the leadership to remove Paterno.

I think if there was a cover up it came much later, around 2010/2011 when everyone started to put the pieces together and went holy shnikes this is going to look bad.

Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?

[Benny B]

Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment?  Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.

Which players?  I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.

[mu03eng]

Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll only lose because everyone "knows" what happened.  But just for the record, even in the Freeh report Sandusky's retirement had NOTHING to do with the 98 incident, he was already retiring, merely negotiating his out terms.  I would agree that Schultz at a minimum knew something as the head of University police as he turned everything over to university police and the DA.  However the DA said there was nothing to see.

If they out Sandusky in 2001, there is no way there is blow back.  They turned him in 98, nothing happened, if they tried again in 2001 and it stuck who's going to be pissed???  Are the suppose to be prosecutors too? There was zero incentive to cover something up in 2001.

[GGGG]

Which players?  I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.

Well, it's only been just over 24 hours.  I think you aren't going to see many current players transfer, but I think their incoming class might see some departures as well as many of their 2013 commits.

[mu03eng]

Which players?  I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.

Gary Gilliam, TE
Matt McGloin, QB(eh)
Lydall Sargant, LB
Incoming recruits
Brendan Mahon, OL
Garrett Sickels, DT
Adam Breneman, WR
Christian Hackenberg, top 150 QB

All confirmed via twitter and/or statement.  All very well may change over the next couple of weeks once the parents realize this might be a bad idea, but so far there have been relatively few defections.

Silas Redd is rumored to be being courted by USC, but no word if he's going or not....that would be a big blow to this year's team.

[Benny B]

Well, it's only been just over 24 hours.  I think you aren't going to see many current players transfer, but I think their incoming class might see some departures as well as many of their 2013 commits.

Agreed... if I'm a middle-of-the-road, fifth-year senior, why transfer now?  However, if I'm an "early-entry" caliber player and need the exposure to improve my draft stock, then I'm high-tailing it out of Happy V.

I fully expect Silas Redd to transfer.  I don't imagine many of the "hey... I'm just lucky I got a scholarship" guys will transfer.

[Canadian Dimes]

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll only lose because everyone "knows" what happened.  But just for the record, even in the Freeh report Sandusky's retirement had NOTHING to do with the 98 incident, he was already retiring, merely negotiating his out terms.  I would agree that Schultz at a minimum knew something as the head of University police as he turned everything over to university police and the DA.  However the DA said there was nothing to see.

If they out Sandusky in 2001, there is no way there is blow back.  They turned him in 98, nothing happened, if they tried again in 2001 and it stuck who's going to be pissed???  Are the suppose to be prosecutors too? There was zero incentive to cover something up in 2001.


Sooooo...let me understand what u are saying??

You are saying that the coach-in-waiting at one of the most successful programs in the country just out of the blue decides to retire after Paterno takes away his coach in waiting moniker and it all happens about the same time that he was first caught or assumed to be a huge liabilty to the program/university?
I am not gonna sit here and state that i know exactly what happened but that whole scenario stinks and in hindsight I think it can rather easily be put together.  

Sooooo...let me understand what u are saying??

You are saying that the coaching waiting at one of the most successful programs in the country just out of the blue decides to retire after Paterno takes away his coach in waiting moniker and it all happens about the same time that he was first caught or assumed to be a huge liabilty to the program/university?
I am not gonna sit here and state that i know exactly what happened but that whole scenario stinks and in hindsight I think it can rather easily be put together.

[Canadian Dimes]

Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?

You are exactly right and at the end of the day who cares if it would of or how much it would have tarnished the university.  When a university and an athletic program in essence is running a pedophile sex ring whether it had anyhting to do with on filed success or not it should have the entire library thrown at it.  Becuase they lacked the moral fortitude to do anything about it.  A huge violation, amybe a different vioaltion than what we are used to but at the end of the day prolly even a worse one

[mu03eng]

Dimes, Sandusky was never the coach in waiting, that is a media construction.  First Paterno wasn't going to retire in the next 10 years and Sandusky was in his late 50s in 98.  Second, as documented in the Freeh report everyone loves to wave around Paterno had written a letter to Sandusky in late 97 saying he would not be the next coach because he spent too much time with the 2nd Mile Charity.  Its all an invention to make the narrative more plausible.

[dgies9156]

I have a serious question with the actions taken by the NCAA against Penn State. While I loathe what Jerry Sandusky did and what the university did to cover the problem up (we Catholics know well all about cover-ups of similar actions, don't we), the NCAA's sanctions are absurd and akin to closing the barn door after the cows have trampled the neighbor's neighbor's neighbor's fence and now are out grazing in the median of Interstate 94.

Taking away victories, for one, is usually reserved for when a team uses an illegal player, such as what happened when USC used OJ Mayo or Reggie Bush. I suspect this was more done for the NCAA's sake to avoid the embarrassment of having to deal with Joe Pa in perpetuity. What illegal player did Penn State play? What are you saying about the efforts of hundreds of NCAA qualified Division 1 athletes from 1998 to 2011. You didn't punish the university as the money from the games has been collected and spent. You punished the young men whose efforts have forever been erased from the NCAA's memory

As far as institutional control over the football team goes, you have to be kidding, right? Is this not the NCAA who takes advantage of often under-privileged athletes, too often offers an education that comparatively few are trained to capitalize on? Is this not the NCAA that pays players not a dime for their services, which make millions for member institutions? Is this not legalized monopoly that takes a players' image and pays him or her not a dime in perpetuity despite using their image to market forever and ever?

Hey NCAA, You feel good about fining Penn State $60 million. But you took it from university operations. Think about it next time Penn State increases tuition at twice the rate of inflation -- or more. Think about it when a promising piece of research is cancelled because someone had to pay a fine.

The real fact is that we have met the enemy and it is ourselves. The NCAA is a joke. Al knew it in the 1960s and 1970s -- when it went after him for being outspoken and likely for winning with heretofore unseen levels of integrated basketball teams (yes, Adolph Rupp, we DO remember!). We've known it recently in the greed surrounding "conference realignment." We see it in the pettiness of the NCAA tournament, who gets in and who does not and we see it in the sanctimoniousness of NCAA officials when someone goes rogue.

I'll say it again, what happened at Penn State was terrible. But, management has changed, the football coach was fired and the University president was ushered from office. Short of lining up the students and shooting them, I'm not sure what else you can do.

[GGGG]

I'll say it again, what happened at Penn State was terrible. But, management has changed, the football coach was fired and the University president was ushered from office. Short of lining up the students and shooting them, I'm not sure what else you can do.

Ah, so we have reached the "absurd hyperbole" point of the discussion...