PonyFans.com

Since the rapist was allowed unlimited access to the football locker room & showers, and the crimes were committed on that property, for years, with the knowledge of the head football coach as well as the AD, and covered up......why certainly the NCAA had to get involved. I don't care how big/prestigious the program is or how many wins the coach has.....the law is the law. It would have been completely different, and public opinion would have been different, had paterno done not only the morally right thing, but also the legally right thing and reported Sandusky and prevented many boys having their lives ruined by a sicko in PSU football property.

But that's the point the NCAA isn't the Law. If the Law is the Law then the the University faces criminal and or civil legal sanctions. The NCAA is not the law and gets its powers as a voluntary assiociation of public and private universities who agree to be bound by certain voluntary bylaws which maybe enforced by procedural due process but not a trial on the merits. What are the bylaws that were broken. I always thought that Lack of Institutional Control was more in the nature of a Finding allowing enhanced sanctions and I'm not sure the fact of Lack of Institutional Control has ever been used as the underlying basis for sanctions.

There is no disputing that Sandusky is a piece of garbage and what he did was monstrous. It is even scarier the moral bankruptcy of the institution not to stop over a decade ago. What scares me is that the President of the NCAA now has carte Blanche to step into any newsworthy investigation and pronounce judgement. It doesn't bode well for the next player or program that gets into trouble.

Stallion,
I see and understand your point, but the NCAA had PSU over a barrel. The NCAA knew it and so does PSU. I assume PSU was more than willing to except the NCAA and Big Ten sanctions and move on.
This is one battle/Public Relations nightmare the NCAA or PSU did not want to wage in the court of public opinion.

Stallion wrote:But that's the point the NCAA isn't the Law. If the Law is the Law then the the University faces criminal and or civil legal sanctions. The NCAA is not the law and gets its powers as a voluntary assiociation of public and private universities who agree to be bound by certain voluntary bylaws which maybe enforced by procedural due process but not a trial on the merits. What are the bylaws that were broken. I always thought that Lack of Institutional Control was more in the nature of a Finding allowing enhanced sanctions and I'm not sure the fact of Lack of Institutional Control has ever been used as the underlying basis for sanctions.

^^This^^

"Selective enforcement" could take on a new and cryptic meaning for those involved with NCAA sanctions.

Stallion, you have advocated that some SMU folks need to get over the NCAA bias...to that point, I couldn't agree more regarding the case (and penalty) against SMU. We got what we deserved. The angst some (me included) have sensed re. the folks in Indianapolis (nee Kansas) is that there is no clear sense of enforcement of an already bloated rulebook, and now the reach on jurisdiction to a new plateau without any basis of 'rule'. The nefarious "lack of institutional control" wasn't even addressed by Emmert in his statememt until the Q & A time, when he referenced it only in passing as a justification for the sanctions.

What would be the 'new minimum' that would warrant NCAA sanctions on a criminal/civil case? The danger is no check or balance. To Couch'Em's point (down the thread a bit) that it directly involved the football program and benefitted those involved to keep it quiet (thus NCAA sanctions), absolutely just and so. But those that are speaking on behalf of the NCAA are not referencing this as the reason. Instead we are left with the NCAA adding sanctions to an "egregious and unprecedented crime".

I worry what will be the "new" next egregious crime the NCAA decides to step up to address.

Keith Whitmire ‏@Keith_Whitmire

Methinks the NCAA didn't issue the death penalty because that would have impacted the Big Ten, not just Penn State. Just a theory.

I do believe the penalties were significant. But for some in the media to market this as being worse than the DP is ludicrous.

Most of the media where to young to remember the SMU DP. They all just live in the moment, so therefore this must be worse than what SMU went through

I feel that paterno's decision to ignore what was happening made it about football....he was the head coach. Sine lack of institutional control merits NCAA penalties, they had to do something. I think they should be pleased w/the sanctions.

Why does it matter if the NCAA overreached? It's a voluntary organization. Any colleges that are uncomfortable with the sanctions can leave.

If Penn St. hadn't consented then Penn St would have been entitled to full procedural and appellate due process under NCAA bylaws. Emmert has been quoted today stating that Penn St might have been subject to multiple years of no football if they hadn't agreed. This was not handled under the typical infraction structure of the NCAA(neither was SMU's after they accepted the Methodist Bishop findings).If the NCAA fails to follow its procedural due process then Penn St. might have been able to file a lawsuit against the NCAA. Participation in the NCAA is voluntary but the NCAA doesn't have unfettered authority to impose sanctions if the NCAA fails to follows its own rules

BigT3x wrote:Why does it matter if the NCAA overreached? It's a voluntary organization. Any colleges that are uncomfortable with the sanctions can leave.

The NCAA did not overreach with PSU but they did with SMU IMO. That is why they would not give it to PSU.

I actually think the penalties are appropriate. I was hell-bent for PSU football to get the DP until. . .and I can't believe I'm saying this. . .I heard Nick Saben's comments last week. His comments about trying to reach a constructive outcome rather than simply punish were pretty thoughtful. The DP would have sent an extremely powerful message, there's no doubt of that. But it also would have seriously damaged the local economy of State College, PA and hurt a whole lot of people who rely on that football program to make a living and who had absolutely nothing to do with the scandal. Plus, it would have demolished all of PSU's other athletics programs, which rely on subsidies from football to survive. Do all of those non-football athletes deserve that? Not to mention the havoc the DP would have wreaked with the Big-10 and its cable TV network. That would cost a lot of schools that had no connection to the scandal a lot of money and a huge scheduling problem less than 45 days before the season starts.

So as horrible as the actions of Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and the other guy (I forget his name) were, I don't think dropping an atom bomb on State College PA and the Big-10 conference would necessarily get us a constructive outcome. I think the penalties announced today, especially the $60 million penalty, get us closer to an outcome that actually accomplishes something other than making everyone feel better about themselves.

I’m not a SMU Alum, although I was living in Plano at the time the DP went down … I won’t insult nor pretend to understand the emotions that ran and still run through many on this board as a result of the DP, and understandably so. While there are examples as of late and unfortunately there may be in the future of egregious acts equal too and now greater at other institutions … I don’t think the NCAA will ever hand down the DP again. Is it a lack of guts or a realization of just how far reaching and long lasting that decision was back in the 80’s … far beyond what they expected and/or wanted … may be some of both. I do think there may be something to the Big 10 TV revenue or lost of in the absence of PSU as someone posted… trying to avoid or lesson the unattended consequences from the fallout of sanctions. No doubt a sad and sickening string of event(s) … no winners in this. Hopefully some structure of good will come of it and the victims will have their restitution in whatever form that takes or is needed.

Stallion wrote:If Penn St. hadn't consented then Penn St would have been entitled to full procedural and appellate due process under NCAA bylaws. Emmert has been quoted today stating that Penn St might have been subject to multiple years of no football if they hadn't agreed. This was not handled under the typical infraction structure of the NCAA(neither was SMU's after they accepted the Methodist Bishop findings).If the NCAA fails to follow its procedural due process then Penn St. might have been able to file a lawsuit against the NCAA. Participation in the NCAA is voluntary but the NCAA doesn't have unfettered authority to impose sanctions if the NCAA fails to follows its own rules

Essentially, PSU accepted a plea bargain offer from the NCAA.

They consented to the punishment for two reasons:
1) They faced a 4 year Death Penalty sanction at a full hearing with full due process.
2) They had to be worried that there would be additional findings. With the plea in place, they have been punished and can move on.

Many people have focused on the criminal conduct of Sandusky (and the possible criminal conduct by Paterno, Spanier, Curley, and Schultz). While it has some relevance, the key issue at PSU was that the football coach answered to nobody. Every once in awhile, the college presidents (who allegedly run the NCAA) wake up. They could not allow that to stand.