Can we please put to rest the asinine argument that the NCAA somehow over stepped its authority to levy sanctions against Penn State for PSU’s actions during Sandusky’s period of committing child abuse and for their role in covering that up?
We have read time and again in the past five days from people who don’t agree with what happened that Mark Emmert and the NCAA boards circumvented established NCAA bylaws when they determined that PSU was responsible and thus punishable in regards to the findings of the PSU commissioned and accepted Freeh Report. It is complete misdirection by Penn State apologists and by others who fear that the same type actions could be levied against their schools for similar infractions.
May I suggest these people go to the source itself to see just how the NCAA arrived at their decision making and for what basis they had in doing so? I believe that the most vocal protesters of the NCAA’s actions in this case don’t want to read or discuss what is found there for fear they would lose a public platform to try to keep Penn State’s reputation, such as it is now, intact.
If anyone has a computer and two working fingers one can find the NCAA’s Constitutional References that PSU did not comply with in this case and how that non-compliance was used as a basis for NCAA sanctions. These are listed under the NCAA’s “Authority to Act” explaination. Thus is the meat behind this statement from Emmert at his press conference before he announced the sanctions on Monday:
Our Constitution and bylaws make it perfectly clear that the Association exists not simply to promote fair play on the field, but to insist that athletics programs provide positive moral models for our students, enhance the integrity of higher education, and promote the values of civility, honesty and responsibility. The sanctions we are imposing are based upon these most fundamental principles of the NCAA.
With these intentions in mind, the Executive Committee, the Division I Board and I have agreed to the following sanctions…
In addition there is a huge misconception and/or outright refusal to believe the basis regarding the NCAA’s statement as follows:
There has also been much speculation on whether or not the NCAA has the authority to impose any type of penalty related to Penn State.
Not only does the NCAA have the authority to act in this case, we also have the responsibility to say that such egregious behavior is not only against our bylaws and Constitution, but also against our values system and basic human decency.
Lets look at that again. “…that such egregious behavior is not only against our bylaws and Constitution, but also against our values system…” Try as they might PSU apologists can’t avoid the fact that NCAA clearly states what they are doing, why they are doing it and through what authority they hold in doing it. Ironically, that authority was given to the NCAA by the member schools themselves, including PSU.
Each and every NCAA member university and school knew and accepted these bylaws as written years ago and ratified at regular intervals. What the opponents of the NCAA actions want to do is express shock and dismay that the regulations, which have been on the books forever, are actually being used to levy sanctions against a university that broke them. The horror of it all!
Some people just can’t believe there are any responsibilities that coaches and administrators at NCAA member schools have that can’t be concretely listed. They need to see that a coach knew that Player X was paid $xxx dollars to play for Podunk State or that coach Y played an ineligible player during a specific season. But that isn’t all that the member schools signed up for when they applied to and were accepted for NCAA membership.
It is true that the NCAA set a precedent in their decisions and actions here. However that precedent was set based on established requirements which were not changed or modified to fit the situation. Not at all, they were just being used as a basis for serious sanctions for the first time. Some people have to be shown that exactly the same thing happened before they accept something, but that isn’t how things work in the regulatory and compliance world.
If it is on the books it is enforceable, plain and simple.
There can be valid differences of opinion on whether the Penn State sanctions were too harsh or too lenient but there can be no doubt that the NCAA levied those sanctions in accordance with their given authority and the established regulations and bylaws.
The schools themselves gave the NCAA the power to act and now have to accept the fact that the NCAA did so.
AS Reed pointed out, it is in the NCAA bylaws for members to provide a moral example. Frankly, the NCAA just never imposed sanctions primarily for this, but then again, they never came across such egregious behavior.
It needs to be clear that the NCAA imposed sanctions not directly because of what Sandusky did, but what the Fab 4 didn’t do. If they would have behaved like any normal decent human being wuld have back in 2001, PSU would never have received any sanctions.
Peak has made a fool of himself. Perhaps he is one, perhaps not. Regardless, he has lost my respect.
On another matter, if I hear one more former PSU player or apologist claim that the current players/students/fans shouldn’t be punished for something that occurred over a decade ago, I just might scream. While the initial act of the coverup occurred over a decade ago, it continued every day until the Freeh Report was issued, and in the minds of some, it still continues today. There is a total lack of acceptance of this among that part of the alumni/fan base that is speaking publicly. Additionally, while they appear to be genuinely revolted at Sandusky, many seem to have no sense of revulsion at the inaction and coverup of Paterno and company. From an outsider’s perspective, that is infuriating.
Once again I mphatically say the current roster and recruits ARE NOT victims. They and their parents had a free choice to make in selecting PSU. The real victims in this saga had no choice because they were coerced by a pedophile whom was impowered by the cult of personality PSU football had become.
Therefore I JUST don’t understand what the Sandusky conviction or the Freeh report has to do with penn state football or why the NCAA ever got involved in these unrelated issues in the first place that produced their sanctions. Poor penn state football, what did we do to desire this? YEH, RIGHT, DUH???????
If XYZ company breaks federal laws because the CEO is dirty, the company is going to be punished not just the CEO. You can feel sorry for the employees who’s wages/benefits/bonuses are at risk to be cut or eliminated all together, but the fact of the matter is the authorities in these situations need to take serious action to prevent further wrong doing.
I think that the NCAA has given the current kids a lot of options to help lessen any impact on them. They have about a YEAR to decide if they want to leave without penalty, they can leave the football program for personal reasons and still maintain scholarship at PSU to earn a degree if they so chose, they can STILL attend and play football at PSU if they so chose.
I think the NCAA did a fantastic job of issuing stern and effective sanctions with small avenues to lessen the impact and collateral damage to the current players and their families.
What they fail to acknowledge is that had this been a professor of business doing this and Paterno and Curley weren’t the main players in the cover up then the NCAA wouldn’t be involved at all.
Pantherman – I think you are right with your example of those three issues being confused. Items #1 and #3 are clear cut and need no defense (even though I just did that in this article).
Item # 3 refers to due process but that can, and was, suspended by the NCAA executive boards in this case – with PSU’s permission. This statement in the NCAA’s Board Committee Executive Motion.
“Pursuant to authority under NCAA Constitution and Bylaw 4.1.2(e) to resolve core issues of Association wide import, the NCAA President is hereby authorized to enter into a consent decree with Penn State University that contains sanctions and corrective measures related to the institution’s breach of the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws and core values of intercollegiate athletics based on the findings of the Freeh Report and Sandusky criminal trial.”
The key phrase here is “authorized to enter into a consent decree with Penn State University that contains sanctions and corrective measures“. Penn State themselves authorized the NCAA to shorten the process when they signed the consent decree.
Again, people either are too lazy to actually read about how this was done or just don’t want to believe it. There is no “due process” necessary if both parties agree as to the outcome.
It is item #2 where perhaps some debate may be made but I refute it in that just because something was never done before doesn’t mean it is ‘hypocritical’ to do so. What people fail to realize is that is a real sense using the Ethics clause had been addressed before when the NCAA sanctioned both Baylor’s BB Head Coach Bliss and OSU’s Tressel with “Show Cause”. To wit:
“The NCAA also imposed a 10-year “show-cause penalty” on Bliss for “despicable behavior” and “unethical conduct.” This means that until 2015, any NCAA member school that wants to hire Bliss must report to the NCAA every six months stating that he is in compliance with any restrictions the NCAA imposes on him, unless that school can demonstrate that Bliss has served his punishment. It is the most severe penalty the NCAA can hand a coach.”
Tressel got a five year show cause for the same reasons. This is a ‘death penalty’ for these coaches to ever work in D1 again as no school will take the chance that the person wouldn’t break the rules again and bring heavy sanctions onto the school itself.
All of this is really cut and dried if one looks at the situation dispassionately and takes the time to educate oneself as to how these sanctions really unfolded. But that’s asking too much when it is easier to cry like a baby that it happened at all.
This is a chance to have their opinions heard on the grand stage and they are taking the opportunity and running with it.
Chas and I spout off with our opinions on here and are willing to discuss other opinions and viewpoints – the radio and TV talking heads won’t allow any ideas but the one’s they already hold.
You are right about Zeise and Peak. Zeise has to appear to be objective and Peak is looking for his next job.
My only solution is to ignore both.
The PG will not exist in 5 years and Peak may have the affirm now, but candidly he isn’t very good, notwithstanding this issue.
Frank MD
Finally, what many of the apologists are forgetting is these guys did not make “a bad decision/mistake” by concealing their knowledge of the situation. They committed a CRIME according to the Clery Act. They “self-reported” the crimes to the NCAA via the Freeh Report, a report that they financed, authorized as sign off on as being representative of the issues. The NCAA reviewed the Freeh/PSU self-report and said here is your punishment based on your self-report. Again, PSU representatives agreed to the sanctions. Aplogists can whine all that they want. Your own university agreed to everything as being accurate and agreeable. End of debate.
I SECOND THE MOTION. FK’em
