To me, "institutional control" is that box marked "other," and why the NCAA going there would be so missing the point about future enforcement AND look like royal hypocrites. There's a fantastic opportunity here for the NCAA to start butting into the business of these big schools who run all these camps that further muddy the waters of institutional, athletic, and personal involvement and liability.

The NCAA had to step in with issues like SMU because THE SCHOOL was going around the rules to compensate players. There are no NCAA rules prohibiting coaches from raping children, sorry folks, so there's not some handy guidelines for how to handle the Penn St. issue. Since there is no precedent, it means that the NCAA SHOULD step in in some way and take control. They need to make sure this NEVER happens again in collegiate sports, since they are the governing body.

The problem I see is that there are people who see the "issue" as solely being Sandusky. That's not what the bigger problem was. The problem was that the head coach, AD and school admins knew it happened and tried to sweep it under the rug. That cannot happen, it shouldn't have happened, and Penn St. is deserving of whatever penalties they get to ensure it never happens again.

_________________


@ncaasports csi.com/facebook


Like the new CSI Userbar? Feel free to use it here and any other forums.
You can save and host it yourself or link from here.

Nothing will "ensure this never happens again"... sorry, that's a panacea.

I think we're all agreed that some horrible stuff occurred at PSU, and an active (then former) assistant football coach, the head football coach,
the Athletic Director, and the college President were involved. This was criminal and / or borderline criminal / completely unethical / shameful.

Where the NCAA should hesitate however, is in the area of jurisdiction.

Some of you wnat the football program shut down. Why do you stop there ? Why not the entire athletics operation ? After all, the AD was involved.
And why not shut down the University ? After all, the college President was involved.

The NCAA was chartered to regulate certain things. Not sure off-the-field criminal activity by administrators that does not relate to cheating in sports
(or NCAA rule infractiions) is in their jurisdiction.

If the NCAA over-steps their bounds and is too heavey-handed with PSU, this will go to court, and the first point of contention will be the limits of NCAA jurisdiction.

"Institutional Control" may be too vague, especially if the mis-deeds at Penn State weren't athletics -related.

What may or could be applied:

NCAA Bylaw 3.2.5 - (loss of active membership) - If the NCAA seeks to apply this rule, it would have to notify PSU by November 1. The NCAA Board of Director would have to move forward if they decided to, for delegates to vote in January.

NCAA Bylaw 3.2.5.1 - Essentially means the NCAA members at-large, not the Committee on Infractions, whereby the full body of delegates present vote, requiring two-thirds vote to discipline at an annual convention.
They could vote on any "active member failing to maintain the academic and athletic standards required for such membership or failing to meet the conditions of membership may be suspended, terminated, or otherwise disciplined..."
USA Today (7/18/2012) presented an article on this.

John Infante, who writes the By-law Blog for AthleticScholarships.net was quoted in the article. So what's implied, if they don't find any specific violations of NCAA rules, and focus primarily on institutional control and/or ethical conduct, Bylaw 3.2.5 may be explored as a process to use.

Bylaw 19 - the "death penalty" one, could be deemed a less effective or an inappropriate route to pursue in these circumstances.

One would think the NCAA would have to use the By-laws (rules) that are already in place. They could concur to use "broad" interpretations as to coverage.

I don't expect they can formulate new, specific rules to cover certain situations/circumstances in prior existence, then retroactively punish a member; rather instill new language for newly defined infractions for future applications.

Also, by the fall, hopefully reactive emotions settle into rational perspectives, more specific information is available for clarity, and the NCAA can deal with the issue objectively, thoroughly, thoughtfully, and effectively. It needs to be a serious "corrective action", not a pile-on.
That said, what may exist already per institutional control and ethical conduct, could give the NCAA enough flexibility to sanction Penn State, in some serious way, if that becomes the ultimate decision. If Penn State sees it as unfair or not an applicable infraction covered by the By-laws, there would be an appeal avenue, or perhaps even the courts.

I cannot see the NCAA not making some forceful condemnation. They certainly don't want to be labeled irresponsible in the court of public opinion; accused of failing to address the matter in a serious way.

Good info SEC !

Did you get the impression there is a "statute of limitations" for 3.2.5 ? (must move ahead by this November for a vote next January).
Or could the NCAA implement 3.2.5 the following year, if time didn't permit them being ready by this November ?

3.2.5.1 discusses Academic Standards, Athletic Standards, Conditions of Membership...
I really doubt there is anything there that can be specifically identified as a failing of Penn State (and admittedly I'm just guessing).
It's just hard to imagine having something in the NCAA by-laws realting to this kind of situation, since it seems doubtful that anyone
envisioned this kind of thing when the by-laws were written. I'm sure the by-laws pertain to athletics, and academic eligibility to particpate.

What is really likely to happen:
Let's say the NCAA tells PSU that some action needs to be taken for political purposes, but it is hard to identify what by-law to whack them with,
since the 3.2.5 stuff seems rather vague, and the NCAA will have to take a very liberal interpretation of things to come up with a specific charge(s).
In such instances, often what happens is the two parties negotiate terms of a Consent Decree, whereby perhaps PSU accepts some punishments like:
scholarship reduction (probably for football) and ineligibility (for Bowls / Post-season, again, probably limited to football).
PSU might agree to such, in that it brings the NCAA sanctions to a close, and the damage to PSU athletic programs is far less than it could have been otherwise.

tute79, a couple of good questions.
From what was reported, the assembly of delegates meets once a year, in January. I would assume the committee on infractions meets fairly regularly or as needed. I would expect the guidelines have time limitations from the point of discovery. No expert on the details here, but I am aware of extensions before being granted, usually responding to an institution needing more time to report or prepare their case.
At the time the Freeh Report was concluding, the NCAA did send PSU a formal letter of inquiry and given X number of days to respond. The new PSU President conveyed they are fully cooperating and they'll need several days to prepare the initial reply. That's the process starter.

They are the very definition of "a day late and a dollar short."

Good stuff, though. I was loosely familar with the ruling of "institutional control" matters after that press Colorado received some years back, as well as the Duke LX matters. Seeing it laid out there, this is precisely why they need to change things. As is, it is so subjective that it absolutely panders to populist appeal...

"We can get you, just because" will not go over well, either.

CBS News reporting that NCAA President will announce Penn State penalties tomorrow morning.Link at http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-574 ... penn-state

A source leaking that actions will be unprecedented.

Is the leak intentional ? The death penalty wouldn't be unprecendented...

An interesting concept might be to hit PSU football with a lot of restrictions that would hamper them from being less of a big-time instiitution not accountable to the university,
or possibly diverting a lot of ticket and TV proceeds to child-abuse programs.

SUPPOSEDLY, the actions are being decided upon, after Emmert received a communique from PSU, responding to 4 questions.
These have not been disclosed, but could the NCAA have asked PSU what "punishment" they would agree to (as part of an agreement with NCAA),
so that action appears to be dictated by the NCAA, and will be uncontested by Penn State ?

I think something like that is likely, because neither party wants an unseemly court dispute, but it seems like there is real issue with whetehr or not the NCAA
has jursidiction to be sticking there nose in here at all. Politically, though, the NCAA needs to appear to be respondig to an appropriate degree,
and PSU politically would be better off showing some remorse as an institution.

Criminal activity, i. e. child abuse, alleged untruthful grand jury testimony, failure to report incidents to legal authorities; are matters for the Commonwealth judicial system.

The press/media, the University, the larger community, fans, etc. made JoePA into an iconic figure, revered for his record number of wins, longevity at the school and in the profession, and the elite and sustained image Penn State developed along with the money, facilities, and prestige that such delivered.

There was a control issue. When the fb coach garnered more power and influence than the top management and board of the institution; and the coaches authority and opinions went unchallenged, it was the foundation for a big "crash" to come. When these administrators were hired, no doubt there were expectations they fit into the "understood system", and "not rock the boat". Frankly, Paterno needed to have retired years earlier. He was a "paid" employee, and should have never been given so much influence that reached beyond the essentials of running a fb program.

Had the school reported to the proper authorities from the point of the first known Sandusky incident, there would have been embarrasment and the image that all was not "perfect" in PSU athletics; but instead, they chose denial and under the rug sweeping, and worst, let the number of victims grow in the interest to protect money-flow, images, and a complacent personnel network. Where was the one ethical figure in the reporting line that said "I have a moral and legal obligation to report this, and let the chips fall where they may"? The administrators had a legion of lawyers at the institution's disposal, some on campus. They even had faculty in academic programs that were experts in the subject matter they could have consulted on the law to report. It took a victim in another county to speak-up to child protective services.

Some of these sports personalities in bigtime TV and print that fed into promoting the JoePA culture, and quick to sing "shame" as the table has turned.

Devastating sanctions on Penn State by the NCAA may not be answer. A symbolic response may not be the right call either. It needs to be a proactive endeavor demanding institutional accountabilty, and firm and ethical oversight of all its athletic programs. How they may try to implement that, we shall see.

sec -

I couldn't agree more with your assessment.

If anyone questioned who ran the university, go back to about 2003-04.
The football team had slipped into mediocrity, and there were numerous incidents relating to players with discipline / criminal problems.
Paterno was pushing 80, and things weren't looking to good. Quite a few boosters were realizing that the time was coming to replace Paterno.
There was a JOEMUSTGO web site.
Spanier and a few others went to Paterno's house to either ask for his resignation, or announce that he would "calll it a day" after maybe one more season.
Joe told them all to take a hike.

So they did. Apparently unwilling to create a scene.

Paterno rebounded with an 11-1 season and an Orange Bowl victory over Bowden.
It appeared that the only remaining POSSIBLE goals for Paterno would have been to outlast Bowden for most D-1A (now FBS) wins,
or then pass Eddie Robinson of Grambling for most D-1 wins (408).
Penn State started winning again, and Spanier renewed Paterno's contract a few more times until ironically he broke Robinson's record just before the **** hit the fan.

ESPN did a "30 on 30" series, that included a great history of the Universtiy of Miami football dynasty during 1980s and 1990s.
Same story. Lots of criminal / borderline criminal / unsavory activity by players. The college president started moving to enact some "institutional control"
and was put in his place by a series of football coaches (notably Jimmy Jonson and Dennis Erickson).

This is the way it is at so many big-time football schools. The hierarchy at these institutions has gotten perverted by the millions of dollars tied to the success and failure
of these programs.
It takes a lot of courage for a college president to take on a popular coach...
Myles Brand (Indiana) firing Bobby Knight.
Some years ago the new female president at U of Cincinnati let Bob Huggins know from Day 1 that she was in charge.
Not sure if she had a chip on her shoulder, but that soon came to a head with his dismissal.
The College President (reporting to the BOT) SHOULD be the main person in charge. Period.

Chicago Tribune article reporting on NCAA penalties for Penn State.Further Big 10 sanctions are expected.Link at http://www.chicagotribune.com/sports/co ... 5116.story

You can say you have all the jurisdiction in the world, but if you don't specifically cite where, why, and how, and instead opt for the colorfully strong language of depravity, you are no less worse than they, Mr. Emmert. What a fool.

Despite that, it's strangely merciful, in a way. Hope it was worth it, Joe.

Especially glad the athletes get some clean "outs" from this if they want.



Yup. He got a contract extension for a couple of years during that '03-'04 downturn, and the way Curley and Spanier shied away from the conversation of why, it seemed like they were too concerned about their own legacies, not being "the men who took out Paterno," than being the men who had a job and responsibilities therein.

Now, it seems like there were other reasons.

Nobody on the coaching staff was even relieved of duty. In fact, they hired an additional offensive coach, Galen Hall, to it!



...and that convenience will hopefully free Pennsylvania of its sociopath of a "governor."



If a conversation can be had about how true it is that a college's athletics be run by its respective institution's president and NOT as an independently functioning private enterprise as is so popular today, it would be a blessing. But I suspect it won't.

At Penn State, this wasn't its first "flub" in such matters. Remember, they didn't handle the women's basketball issue with much class or regard to those affected. They allowed the coach to resign with dignity, and I believe they didn't get such backlash they were due because it was a liberal issue in a conservative environment.

Blog article out of Madison reporting that the Big 10 has announced more penalties (pursuant to a consent decree)against Penn State.Link at http://www.jsonline.com/blogs/sports/163409646.html

To add to above: Big Ten's response.

1) censure
2) probation
3) ineligibility (added the CCG as off-limits for four years)
4) no bowl revenue share during four year-ban

B1G puts it out there, though: PSU is very much a Big Ten school. I think it goes to show just how unpopular PSU's decisions were to ax Paterno and satiate the multitudes, this compliance is almost as model as Paterno's perceived "clean house" for his football program. Ironic, really.