The NCAA Is About To Make A Big Mistake With Penn State

Your sarcastic tone in this article really isn't very convincing. The big business called Penn State is still receiving admissions and will manage. Have you ever heard of setting a precedent? You sound angry and clearly are the one taking things personally. Meanwhile there was a long, protracted cover-up that allowed a predator to commit horrors. The mob has spoken  and sometimes, their justice is both swift and correct. Meanwhile, your anger is thinly veiled behind a jacket of legal jargon. Sorry, but you are like a bad lawyer joke.

A lot of people in this thread seem to think the NCAA should have just stood by and done nothing.  Maybe you think the NCAA shouldn't exist at all, and maybe your right, but if it IS going to exist, it HAD to do something here.  How could they stand by and say "not our job" to the single largest scandal in the history of the industry (and I mean industry), when at the same time the are running around suspending kids for selling jerseys or coaches for making too many text messages during the month of whatever.  

An argument for the NCAA doing nothing is in my mind an argument for saying they shouldn't exist at all.  All the "slippery slope" fears went out the window when PSU signed the consent order.  Which is not to say there won't be questions down the line.  But here the offending party conceded all the facts, admitted liability, and agreed to the punishment beforehand.  No school with any leg to stand on will never lay down like that unless they have done something historically heinous.   

“Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,” NCAA President Mark Emmert said at Monday’s press conference.

The culture at PSU needs to change - just like it does at so many other universities across the country.

Good job by the NCAA. For once, they got it right.

it wasn't because a bunch of boys got raped and awful acts were done for a period of decades that caused the ncaa to act. It was because PSU presidents, coaches, exc knew boys were being raped and awful acts were being done, and they decided to cover it up for decades. At that point, the NCAA should come down. If you don't agree, maybe you would not feel the same if you had a bunch of kids that were all raped and everything was covered up because it might hurt the image of the university and program. Who cares about the image of the kids. 

I don't normally comment, but this one I'll give a shot. Those who think the NCAA over-reached are far outnumbered by those who think that this was a fair, or even, too-little, punishment. But really, this punishment was essentially about the Presidents attempting to regain/take (depends on your point of view) of college athletics, and the enormous amount of money that CFB now generates. MR. SEC (John Pennington) can say this is uncharted territory and a slippery slope, and maybe it is. All precedents are such. But that can't stop you from acting. When a University cannot fire a coach because he is "too big," and when a cover-up of such awful crimes is based on letting a coach obtain the most wins in CFB, then that University has crossed a line that most of us cannot stomach. What is to say that in the future similar behaviors are covered-up because of the $$$$? What would you say then? Is this competitive advantage? I think it is. I love this site, and read it often, but you and your like-minded media outside of academia are wrong in your conclusion.

What about the huge recruiting advantage PSU got by covering up the coach's behavior.  They're recruiting pitch is built around how perfect they are at PSU.  Paterno and PSU were going thru some tough times when this all occurred and this info would have been devastating to both of them.  Because they kept it hidden , they were able to continue to recruit on the highest levels and enjoyed all the benefits(financial) from that recruiting.  In fact, wasn't this one of the main driving force behind the cover up?   Not seeing how you could possibly not think that connection isn't extremely relevant..

John, you know I have nothing but respect for you and your site. But...... I respectfully disagree with you on this one. There was a coverup from the school president all the way down to the janitor... ok maybe not the janitor but you get my point. The NCAA "HAD" to do something. Just like with President Richard Nixon it's the coverup that got the school in trouble. There should be more hand outs like this in my opinion. It's time the NCAA actually started handing out punishment and not just slaps on the hand.

So with all of the vacated wins, the winingest coach in NCAA history is Bobby Bowden.

And lets not forget that for the first time ever the NCAA is handing out penalties without even investigating first. 

The NCAA has bylaws that every institution agrees to follow.  In all that it did wrong, Penn State DIDN'T violate these bylaws.  But the NCAA is punishing Penn State anyway.  That is WRONG!

I also have to take umbrage with the argument in this article.  Many of the comments below have covered most if not all the important points, but I think I have something to add as well.  I do understand the concept of the slippery slope here, but assuming the fear of it is justified then I am still willing to live with the consequences of the NCAA imposing sanctions for criminal behavior.

PSU crossed a line that I never believed a major college program(or any college program for that matter) would ever cross.  Yes, the people who were actually guilty of crimes will be punished by the court system.  The NCAA can't put anyone in jail though so I think it's hyperbole to say that the NCAA is overreaching by enforcing non-criminal punishments in exchange for criminal behavior.

For the NCAA, it's the cover-up and the culture that are really at question here.  People will go to jail, but how will the culture that allowed this to occur be changed?  The only parties capable of doing that are the individuals in positions of power.  Individuals are flawed though and you can't rely on them to do the right thing all the time.  What the NCAA can do is provide incentive to any other program out there to police itself and keep this from happening.  Given the severity of the crimes committed I think it is more than appropriate for the NCAA to act.

Now I think this next point is very critical.  We all want to jump on PSU, burn it to the ground, execute Texas justice, and all that.  We need stop and look in the mirror though.  None of us who are major college sports fans should think that our favorite schools are above the very same behavior that took place at PSU.  I'm not saying it IS happening elsewhere and I'm not saying it is even likely, but we need to be realistic.  The power structure, the money, the 'willingness to protect certain individuals at the cost of others,' and the 'obsession with good PR' that was all present at PSU is present at every other school to one degree or another.  None of us want to believe that, but that doesn't mean it isn't true.  I think it's absolutely necessary for the NCAA to hammer PSU so that any other deranged coach, official, or university employee will get the message that the culture itself and not just the actions will NOT be tolerated.

The crimes themselves were the most heinous actions, but it all would have been cleaned up a long time ago and many, many kids would have been spared this abuse if the support system that allowed Sandusky to skate wouldn't have been there.  John wrote an article a couple of weeks ago, I think, on how both the media and the fans deify these coaches and the football teams themselves.  Well, if we're going to make idols out of these football programs then we shouldn't be surprised when the people running them start to act like gods.  If these peoples' priorities are so out of whack that they are willing to cover up child abuse to protect football or good PR then at the very least they need to know there is a punishment for that.  If JoePa had been the man we all thought he was many years ago then he would have kicked Sandusky to the curb and true enough there would have been a mild PR hit because of it.  We can all agree though that the fallout from that wouldn't have been on the same planet as what is happening now.  If the NCAA bringing down the hammer on PSU forces officials at other schools to clean up their house then it will have served a higher purpose than simply policing recruiting violations.

And my original point was this.  Even if this is a slippery slope that allows the NCAA to enter into foreign territory in the future, and I'm not convinced that it is, then I can live with that.  I may get ticked off when the NCAA comes after my school for any number of sports related violations of stupid rules, but how can I be upset if the NCAA punishes my program if it allowed horrible inhuman things to happen?  And the same principle even applies if the crimes committed were more subdued, but anti-social either way.  If I can accept punishments for players selling textbooks then surely I can accept it if the NCAA punishes the program for doing something that was truly wrong.  Maybe all the various crimes and anti-social behavior you see on college campuses would be reduced?  I can't see that as a bad thing when we're talking about something that is far more important than football or any other sport.

And even if some fans out there would bust a gasket over lost scholarships or lost bowl games after some sort of crime then I think that's their problem.  I think that's another symptom of this deifying of sports figures that we continually do.  Peoples' priorities need to be corrected and if that makes it happen then I'm all for it.

When Congress investigated President Nixon's cover-up of his role in the Watergate scandals in 1973-1974, there were commentators at the time who worried that the Watergate hearings set a dangerous precedent because if Congress impeached Nixon or forced him to resign, Congress would have too much power over the office of the presidency. 

Although the Nixon administration committed crimes much less heinous than those committed by Sandusky, the cover-up to protect Paterno was very reminiscent of Nixon's aides lying and stonewalling to protect the president.  And just as the release of the White House tapes shocked Americans in 1973 who couldn't believe sanctimonious, prudish President Nixon was a crude racist, the American public in 2012 is shocked that the kindly honorable grandpa Joe Paterno apparently had a personality more like Michael Corleone than Mr. Rogers.

I believe that the NCAA is feeling public pressure to act against Penn State athletics much in the same way Congress felt public pressure in 1973 to confront the Nixon administration.  In my opinion, if the NCAA fails to act decisively against Penn State, the public will lose confidence in the NCAA to police amateur collegiate athletics in the future. 

Another similarity between Watergate and Penn State:  the public is as angry today with Joe Paterno as it was with Richard Nixon in 1974 because both Nixon and Paterno escaped answering for their misdeeds.  President Ford immediately pardoned Nixon for any crimes he may have committed, and Paterno conveniently died before the true nature of his actions became public. 

The NCAA already knows Penn State has the judges hanging on and dangling from their coat tails, anticipating crumbs fallen from that cookie, that Penn State, no doubt, hid in it's pocket. 

In another example of a cover up in Penn State Administration's past practices: Prior to January 1999, a Penn State Undergraduate student who was in a health field major, agreed as a gesture of goodwill to take several photos of children on their last day in the Head Start program, responding to the request of a child's guardian, who happened to be present. Agency staff assisted in this---by lini...ng all the kids up for several group photos. The roll of film was not developed for several months, for no other reason than the entire roll of film was not yet finished. According the the Freeh Investigation, at precisely the same time the Pennsylvania Department of Welfare became aware of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Penn State, chose to severely sanction the student, for reasons that appear to be related to THEIR not putting the state mandatory Act 34 childcare clearances in place, and made the allegation that the student "had taken inappropriate pictures of children", and said the student "committed a serious confidentiality violation", therefore, Penn State may have became in compliance, having found themselves a reportable incident. Consequently, Penn State deemed it fitting to terminate the student in her degree program, and Penn State, shortly afterwards, also very manipulatively terminated her in her full-time employment of seven years - because she continued to fight an incredible cover up, a great injustice.  After receiving assistance and legal advice from Penn State's student legal advocate, Jose Texidor, this student "inappropriately" contacted University President Graham Spanier requesting his help.  In January 1999, President Spanier, according to the Freeh Investigative Committee Report, was busy working on Jerry Sandusky's retirement package, and what he said to the victimized student was simply that he was not in a position to help (the student). When it comes to NCAA SANCTIONS, although some may think it may be nice if they were able to help Penn State out a little, HARSH TREATMENT may become something Penn State will know all too well this fall, and if so harsh that the die-hard loyal, deaf, dumb and blind Nittany Lions are left standing there bleeding, will they still be claiming they are bleeding bue and white?

I think you are missing the boat here Mr. P.

Yes the court system will take care of the individuals here.  That is what the court system is designed to do.

What the court system is not designed to do is deal with the culture that allowed this to happen.  How did professional, well educated, intelligent men allow this to spiral out of control like it did?  Every single one of them knew that the decisions that they were making were wrong and disgusting yet they still made them, why?  For some reason in their minds the football program and the university image were more important than the lives of children who were at least nominally under their protection.   That is the sign of a very, very sick culture.  If you think getting rid of the individuals somehow righted the culture at Penn State I ask you to read a few of the press releases coming from Happy Valley lately.  The Board of Curators or whatever their title is at Penn State just last week refused to remove the JoPa statue because it might offend some big money boosters.  Is that the move of a group that has learned their lesson and is trying to right the ship or one that still refuses to see the light?

The NCAA is not getting involved because a crime happened on campus.  Hell, they happen all of the time, some worse than any of the individual crimes committed here.  The NCAA is involved because the football department, the athletic department and the university president conspired to not only cover up a crime but also allow the perpetrator to remain free with access to their facilities to continue preying on more children.

For those that argue this not an NCAA matter because they gained no competitive advantage from the conspiracy I ask you to think again.  They did not cover up these crimes because Mr. Sandusky was a great friend, they did it to protect the brand.  News of a child rapist would hurt the brand and the image of the school.   So they did this to prevent a competitive disadvantage.  I learned in ninth grade algebra that  subtracting a negative was the same as addition.  By not reporting these crimes they maintained the status quo which, in effect, gave them a competitive advantage over the situation if the news were released.

I am not a fan of the NCAA.  They are arbitrary and seem to base decisions on the pocket book more often than the rule book.  But if they do not act in this case how can they ever discipline a school for giving a recruit an extra meal or making sure another kid gets help passing his sophomore English class?

John, does the new word that PSU seems to be in complete agreement with the findings of the NCAA and the resulting sanctions change your thinking any?  Let's just assume for the sake of argument that PSU isn't agreeing to more than it otherwise would in the interests of getting this over with.  

Most people miss the entire timeline here and some of the logic behind JoePa's failed decisions. Sandusky did not just start in '98. If Joepa was aware of child abuse by Sandusky between '91 and '98 when the know actions were hitting the fan, then there was a known violation of the Clery Act. At that point, JoePa was not trying to protect his football program, but protecting himself and the school at large. Sandusky would have sold JoePa up the river. The Clery Act would have put JoePa in jail and could have brought sanctions on the school from the DOE. When it came up again in 2001 - Sandusky then not only had JoePa bent over a barrel, but also the whole school because the President, AD and more were now involved in the cover up. Were these men willing to spend 6-10 years in federal prison and bring sanctions by the DOE on PSU, just to what every claims that they would have done in the same situation. Joepa loved PSU more than anyone - He was PSU. He would never knowingly hurt PSU, so he stayed silent. He hoped that all of this would just blow over. It was not until Sandusky volunteered to coach at a local high school that he stepped out of PSU web of protection that he got caught. And once the thread was pulled the entire house of cards came down. So was there a competitive advantage gain? Depends on how you look at the matter. If PSU had been hit be DOE sanctions back in 98 or even 01 - would acredidations have been lost? PSU has had record growth over the past decade into one of the largest public research schools in the nation. That allowed Paterno to recruit great scholar athletes. I believe he was 2 B10 titles since 98, and several BCS bowl games in that same time frame. If Paterno had been fired in 98 or 01, like he should have been, would that have ever happened? If PSU was not the stellar rep school that it was up until Nov11, then would it have a recruiting advantage. Question - was it easier to recruit to PSU last year or this year. This covering up this crimes did give PSU and advantage. While I agree - the NCAA is stepping onto a slippery slope and needs to choose their words carefully not to be expected to rule on every major issue that pops up on campus.

First, I appreciate the site putting out honest opinions, especially when they are contrarian to the prevailing group think. I won't link to the nbcsports.msnbc.com story titled, "Penn State Should Get the Death Penalty" by Ventre, but the relevant quote and *part* of the counterpoint is below:

"I always felt the NCAA should restrict itself to competition-based offenses. But this Penn State calamity IS a competition-based offense. If the worst is true, then Paterno and other officials at Penn State covered up Sandusky’s crimes because they wanted to protect the sanctity of the football program and make sure it continued unfettered, winning games and raking in cash.... that means a conspiracy existed to keep football program running smoothly and without interference. That is a competition-based offense, regardless of the hideous nature of the acts at the center of it all."

A self-governing body like the NCAA should hold the long-term values of its member institutions far and above the short term setbacks sanctions may have on current staff and students. It was an institutional coverup and the institution absolutely deserves the severe punishment of whatever authority the NCAA has.

In the roll call of bad ideas, this is a really bad idea. The NCAA is not only piling on, but this decision will set the stage for the NCAA to be named as a co-defendant in the future. Lets say institution X does something wrong, somebody is hurt, and the plaintiff's attorneys' can prove that an NCAA official had knowledge that should have led them to the conclusion that someone should have looked into something, anything, further. Or, that an NCAA inspection should have led to questions being forwarded to a protective services, or that since the NCAA asserted itself in this case, it KNEW it should have inserted itself in such a way as to prevent this type of activity in the future, but failed to do so.

The NCAA is now saying it has authority to punish for ANY activity that happens in a sports program among member institutions.That will, not might, but will be turned by a good attorney, into a "You had the authortiy, you asserted jouristicion, so a failure by you to take all measures to resolve or prevent the issue makes you liable."

This is stupid, and in the end the NCAA will get called onto the carpet, either by an institution or by a plaintif. Remember, an institution can argue the NCAA might not have been forthcoming fast enough to the institution with information it may have had, and not even known it had, on a charge and must share liability for damages. 

This is nuts. Organizations pay tons of money to lawyers to limit their liability, and the NCAA is leading with its face on this issue. Dumb, dumb, dumb.

Most comments without trolling ever?

@mattmurphyshow awesome, will be listening. Is a great site for SEC and Pennington at least reads as fair minded.

Your analogy is s bit off. It wouldn't be covering up a drunk driver until he ran someone over. It would be covering up a drunk driver who ran over at least 10 people, a few of them in the weight room parking lot.

Look at this from the other side of the canyon. If the NCAA isn't going to do anything in this case, then under what circumstances would it ever be justified? If institutional facilitation of child rape is beyond the review of the NCAA, then what power does it hold over its membership at all? None? Is there nothing a school could do criminally that violates its membership agreement enough to justify a visit behind the wood shed?

If Emmert oversteps, the NCAA membership will (A) wipe out the penalties on appeal, and (B) rewrite their rules. Because they have the freedom to write their own rules, to appoint executives to enforce them, and to create committees to review both the rules and enforcement - which is exactly what is happening here. This power has always existed. It's just never been needed.

Power is going to be abused at some point. It's the nature of power itself. Abdicating power results in abuses as well - different abuses, but still abuses. It all comes down to finding the right balance. Which standard is better for the NCAA? One that says the NCAA must unilaterally bow out of all criminal matters no matter what? Or one which says the President, in concert with his board, can act in extreme cases, subject to review by an appeals committee?

I actually prefer the second.