To play god's advocate the PSU players didn't do anything wrong. You can still fine the school, fire coaches involved and put an *. None of this would hurt current players(considering the coaches would have to be gone any way you look at it) or pretend than the past didn't happen. Taking schollies isn't too bad either because current players would be able to play in a bowl, and be on tv if I shrunk it down to this version. It would just be like they have a team w/ more walk ons,

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

You offered the conflicting point, FSA. It often is the new crop of players, coaches, AD, etc., that have to experience the consequences; most or all having no direct, and often indirect, role in the violations sanctioned.
Not to diminish the seriousness of the ill behaviors by former PSU personnel; the NCAA's reaction expanded its turf of enforcement/sanctioning to a new issue domain, but it still remained under the umbrella of "institutional control of athletics". While the NCAA wanted to make a forceful response to the troubling scandal at Penn State; thus,
making a warning to all member schools to have responsible and ethical control of their athletic operations and personnel; they may be engaging themselves in a precedent to intervene when other criminally-related issues emerge elsewhere in the future that may not directly relate to recruiting, player eligibility, and assets/demands involving student athletes.

While a strong and deserving response has been made about child welfare aimed at a particular institution; is the NCAA also going to deal more substantively in the future about coaches & players DUIs', drug busts such as what happened at TCU, coaches hiring their mistresses, campus rapes involving athletes, theft, assault, etc.? Much of this they have been leaving for institutions to handle internally. What, if anything pertaining to a crime, major or minor, would not be pursued if covered-up or dismissed by individuals connected to campus athletics though no athletes are involved? Apparently, the NCAA sees themselves as having the flexibility, per their own rules and operandi, to determine what, when, how, and who to make an example of. This can't be devoid of the political diminision, and new questions per consistency shall emerge.

Thugish and criminal player behavior the NCAA looks to the institutions to correct. They'll also defer to the insitution to discipline a coach for an infraction not program-related. But coaches who mislead the NCAA (ex. Tressel@OSU), and coaches and oversight personnel of athletics who conspire/deceive to protect an athletic program from disturbing revelations, are fair ground for the NCAA to punish.

Perhaps it is time for big-time institutions to "pay" the player mercenaries, and have external, contracted entities/agencies to hire and manage athletic personnel. Much of this has stopped being "academic" long ago.

my only point is that I think it's dumb to vacate things. Do this * or any other form punishment. Nothing conflicts with my point that I want vacating gone from the NCAA.

_________________

WRANGLERS 153-55-1 CVFL CHAMPS '04 '05 '09 '12

NFL CHAMPS '29 '30 '31 '36 '39 '44 '61 '62 '65 '66 '67 '96 '10

BW/WAC/MWC CHAMPS '77 '82 '85 '88 '89 '91 '92 '93 '99 '12
['08 NCAA BASEBALL CHAMPS]

That's not correct. Vacating means you walk away from your wins, that's it. Nothing changes for the other guy.

The NCAA hoops record book has much clearer examples (regular season records are barely mentioned in the FBS record book).

In the first round in 1996, UMass beat UCF. Later, they vacated their Final Four and their wins from the NCAA tournament.

UCF has made the NCAA Tournament four times: 1994, 1996, 2004, 2005.
Their "Official Record" according to the NCAA Final Four Record Book: 4 Yrs, 0 wins, 4 losses.
(Section 3, Page 40. PDF online here: http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/pub ... 011FF.html ) That's not "technically" 0-3. That's 0-4. Not even an asterisk to denote that UMass vacated the win.

Since that was 16 years ago, the latest was Memphis in 2008. Vacated 38 wins including five tournament wins.

First Round: beat Texas Arlington.
UTA's Official Record: One appearance (2008), 0 wins, 1 loss.
Same source (Page 50).

For the teams vacating wins, it has the asterisk. On Page 45:
MEMPHIS* 23 appearances, 32-23

And at the end (Page 52) it has the notation and explanation: * TEAMS VACATING NCAA TOURNAMENT ACTION
Lists what was vacated: Memphis (1982-86, 2008) 14-6
And then lists the "Official NCAA Records" for those teams: Memphis 17 years, 18-17

UCF and UTA not listed under adjusted records. Their records are what happened. No change.

Losses are treated exactly the same:
Kansas beat Memphis in the 2008 National Championship game. (Page 43) KU: 40 appearances, 88-39
KU is not listed on under adjusted records as they've never vacated anything.

If you vacate a record, you just walk away from it and can't claim it. It's stricken from YOUR RECORD, but not anyone else's.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

The whole reason PSU had to vacate wins is because PSU had a culture that allowed this to happen BECAUSE of the reverence for Joe Paterno and Penn State football's place in the community. The community deified Paterno, so to correct the culture, you smash the false idol.

There's no "Fair" way to punish PSU without collateral damage to the innocent. You're trying to destroy the culture of "football above everything," and the only way to do that is dismantle their football program that's one of the winningest in the last 40 years and perennially in the Top 30.

I think you take away their ability to make money off football.

When the "four-year death penalty" option news came out after the NCAA issued their sanctions, it was reported that O'Brien told the AD or President or both: "I want to play and I want to play on TV." and anything else, they can work around. Kind of tells you what's more important.

Want to do it without "hurting the kids?"
-- $60 million fine.
-- No bowl ban
-- TV ban for Big Ten games (opponents markets may get games).
-- For four years, all out of conference home games must be on the road, at cost. No guarantees. Honor your contracts against scheduled opponents, but the venue shifts to the road.

That's 9.5 games they'd be losing cash from. That's 954,000 tickets they don't get to sell, and half the gate from a neutral site game at the Meadowlands they're losing. That's SERIOUS bank.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Well, god help the NCAA should further information minimize Paterno's role and the football program's after this. You already had people scratching their heads at how Emmert could use such powerful and self-assuring language to level such unique and specifically pointed justice but not have the wherewithal of cause to justify it by the end of that day. And what it did, whatever message it was to send to "that culture," was instantly and rightly rebutted by Adam Taliaferro sooner still. From that moment on, the NCAA, in trying to grandstand for their own legitimacy by claiming jurisdiction and outrage, unintentionally took this affair from the victims and made them share the spotlight with the innocent kids Paterno led through that tunnel for 13-14 years.

Or, the other collateral damage: who on 'SC just lost their schollie to Mr. Redd.

I don't think the NCAA overstepped their bounds. Despite not committing a specific NCAA violation, Penn State PROVED Lack of Institutional Control. They needed an appropriate LOIC penalty. In the NCAA's eyes, it's as simple as: "If they'll cover THIS up, they could have covered up ANYTHING."

Therefore, that culture has to come down. It has nothing to do with taking the focus away from the victims, it's about re-establishing proper priorities for an NCAA institution. I'm fine with what they did. I don't think it's fair to the kids, but I really don't think there's a way to do it without being unfair to the kids.

When I say "culture," I'm not saying PSU nation and its support is "the problem." Loyal fans who live, breathe and die with PSU football or Joe Paterno (or any program, see Bear Bryant) is a GOOD THING. Blind loyalty and total devotion is what makes college sports great. PSU knocks it out of the park in that regard.

The problem is BLIND loyalty is for FANS. The University can't be blind. They're supposed to serve the greater good of the program and protect it from themselves.

A secret service agent saying "Yes sir" at any order of the President is blind loyalty the the President, a man.
A secret service agent saying "Sir, my orders are to PROTECT you, not commit treason for you" is loyalty to the Presidency, the Office.

The culture that needed changing was that no one at PSU said "I'm not letting you do this to my beloved program. I don't care if you're my boss, you're failing Penn State so you gotta go."

You HAVE to tear down the program. Just replacing those people who failed it leaves the door open for the next people to fail it, too. You need an atmosphere of "We've worked too hard to rebuild this program, we're not going through that again and I'll be damned if you put it in jeopardy."

You mention Adam Taliaferro: Everything he's said in the wake of the scandal has been PERFECT. That's a guy who's serving his program. This is the reason the NCAA can hand down this punishment and know it will not kill PSU football, but cleanse it.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

There is no disagreement on the lack of institutional control, but was the NCAA's LOIC rules designed with university issues or for athletic issues with institutional willful disregard? This is totally new territory for the NCAA, and they owed it not just to Penn State, but to all NCAA programs to interpret their laws faithfully to justify and clarify their depth and scope to best serve and guide its organization.

It's likely the current governor is going to get in trouble for this, too. NCAA can't touch him. But because he may be interwoven with this whole thing, that's why the NCAA did itself a disservice when acting so poorly and hastily on just a school-specific report.



Truth. He's a stand up guy, and far better a voice in this thing than Lubrano or whatever his name is.

But...why is there even such a "woe is Penn State, what is to become of them" current? This school screwed up big time. Failed on so many counts. Why is their recovery from this punishment in need of such press? Why is their punishment a story? Because the ones paying the bill aren't the ones who ordered the meal. And that's not fully PSU's fault, or the culture.

FWIW, I think your earlier post which disseminated where this offense ranked among other historical infractions was precisely the kind of conversation we should have gotten from Mr. Emmert and his Oregon State buddy at the presser. They owed it to us. Coming from other parties, even if it is spot on, means nothing when it isn't coming from one with the authority and responsibility to say it.

I'm sure Emmert will be equally stunning when UMFL and UNC are up. They're off to a fine start with UCF.

I know we're all tired of the PSU thing...

This morning local ESPN radio (everyone's source for completely unbiased and non-sensationalized information) were covering a possible move by the PSU Board of Trustees...
Apparently a lot of trustees think the PSU President should have consulted them prior to entering this consent decree on the NCAA punishments.
They may now assert that the actions by the PSU President (in agreeing to this) over-stepped his authority (in not allowing the BOT to ratify the consent decree first).
Agreeing to a $60 million fine without thoroughly discussing the matter does seem a bit odd.
Many of the trustees apparently feel the NCAA lacks the jurisdiction to "rough up" PSU the way they did without going through due process of the standard NCAA investigation.
(I agree, but that's neither here nor there).

So stay tuned.

I would love to see this go to court, and have a court rule on whether the NCAA is chartered to dole out punishment for criminal activity by adminatration members
in this quasi-sports realm.

I am tired of the PSU saga also.

I am correct on the vacated wins policy per PSU. I am not repeating them. The explanation was in the 7/23/2012 edition of The Washington Post, among other publications.

This issue grew some legs after the initial shock and disgust of some of the trustees when the punishment came some weeks back. One of the trustees (the outspoken one, Lubrano) expressed this almost immediately after them. Apparently, an "executive board" was called in to review and approve the sanctions to which Erickson signed, and was not reviewed by the full board. I guess this is the next step to that grievance.

The former players are striking back, too...and they have the right guy to head that appeal request.

I, too, hope this gets to a court.

Though SMU has recovered a lot from the death penalty imposed many years back; certain effects remain.

A fb recruiter from a southwest-type univerisity asks a touted prospect which schools are you currently considering playing for? The prospect replies, "I've been offered scholarships by SMU, Tulsa, and Baylor; my current favorite is SMU and I have a great chance to be a starter there! The recruiter, representing another competitor, responds: "Oh, you don't want to go there, they had such a big scandal and got the death penalty as a result; you don't want that stigma with you and possible hurt your pro prospects, and you are really good". The prospect says, "I didn't think about that, thanks for telling me, I'll take more time to decide".

Agree with some above comments; the NCAA needs to define and clarify it's intended OUTCOMES; beyond displaying it can dole out punishment in haste for one given situation.

The NCAA wants to make sure a particular school suffers financially and is assured struggling and/or losing seasons that may impact for a decade or more, along with a substained tarnished image that shall hang on for decades? OK, then say it, if that's the intent. Such seems counter to what may be the real purpose for corrective behavior. It may also be sending a message for schools to be even more clever in how to hide their own dirt.

I believe in measured sanctions consistent with confirmed violations. If something is not there, out-of-control behavior would be even more rampant. But with this, should the NCAA's role in this be beyond judge and warden? The right to appeal needs to be uniform. Apparently, the new PSU President agreed to the leveled sanctions to start to get this stuff behind him, and fear that the sanctions could have been even worse. Also, PSU officials wanted to show humility and institutional remorse and make their own statement about the ill behaviors that occured previously. Did the NCAA send an investigative team of their own to the campus? That could have been a prudent move, in that the Freeh report was more focused on discovery per institutional actions rather than focusing just on athletic matters. The Freeh report serving as the prime investigative arm of the NCAA appears to be unique territory. That noted, the current PSU President did respond to a list of questions sent to him by the NCAA.

Exactly...

The NCAA and others take their eye off the ball.

Lost in all this is what should take place:
Help / Compensate the victims (instead, all this tax-payer money will go toward misc. programs that may or may not effectively spend the money to help / prevent other cases).
Punish the responsible parties.
And yes, see what can be done to change the culture at an institution where those that are aware of crimes are too fearful to report them.

Instead, I feel like Mark Emmert has used this opportunity to extort money from PSU (read: Pennnsylvania tax-payers), and then embarks on a mission to create "world peace and happiness".

In no way, do I want to be-little what happened or defend Spanier, Curley, Shultz, Paterno, Sandusky, and a few lawyers that were involved here.
It's just that punishing an institution really doesn't make that much sense in terms of fairness or even deterence.
Those individuals deserve punishment. Those individuals deserve to be sued for every last dime they own. Arbitrary whacking of the tax-payer seems rather mis-guided.

Not entirely analogous are those situtations where the NCAA punishes a school for NCAA violations / infracitions (typically involving the football or basketball program).
Wins are vacated (no problem with that), school is hit with some loss of revenue in terms of TV exposure / post-season ban (OK, if it's not too onerous), and then what happens ?
The guilty party (head coach / recruiter) is NOT personally sanctioned by the NCAA.
His contract is typically terminated at the school, and he quickly winds up at a different school working under the same modus operandi, hoping not to get got cheatting at that school.
The individual(s) need to be punished. In the PSU case, the NCAA really can't do that, since it's a criminal matter.
But were NCAA rule infractions have occurred, the fair thing to do would be a procedure that results in a guilty coach / recruiter being "balck-balled" from future hire.

It's the NCAA. "Due process" isn't really a fair process to begin with.

I really think they should drop this The PSU President negotiated the hammer after finding out the NCAA was about to bring the axe.

_________________
1897-1898 | 1900-06 | 1926-27 | 1929-30 | 1939 | 1942

Yeah, I was nodding my head like an idiot last Sunday morning during Face the Nation when Sarah Ganim was talking about how Penn State's state-related status makes Erickson's words about where the $60m comes from a little curious, especially how Erickson said they may likely have to "loan" some money over to the Athletic Department. Those Pennsylvanians who know the deal about what kind of herculean effort it took to get Paterno and Spanier's tax records should fully expect there to be plenty of resistance from the institution to fully open ALL of its books so the people of this state know they are not paying for PSU's boo-boo in any way.

Perhaps going unnoticed or unheeded: if you fight the NCAA, do you also fight the Big Ten? Does one come first, or do you go after them both?



It's a circular argument; did the NCAA have any right to even go to its tool shed? That they did, without clarifying why other that they did, is why we are where we are.