Penn State sanctions reduced

[TNnative]

So, if I were to murder someone inside Neyland Stadium, you'd be totally supportive of the NCAA leveling UT's football program? Neyland is a "football facility" and all.

If it was a smart azz Vanderbilt fan, it might be justifiable homicide, and result in good publicity. J/K

 

[Slydell]

Because the bylaws, approved by the membership, don't give the NCAA that kind of authority. And what athletes were involved?

Was the one person in the shower an athlete or connected in some way? Or, the person that was found guilty of the actions not authorized in some way by the athletic department to have access to the athletic area? I may have missed something, honestly, during all the hoopla. Jo Paw knew everything that was going on and never raised an eyebrow, right?

 

[bamawriter]

Was the one person in the shower an athlete or connected in some way? Or, the person that was found guilty of the actions not authorized in some way by the athletic department to have access to the athletic area? I may have missed something, honestly, during all the hoopla. Jo Paw knew everything that was going on and never raised an eyebrow, right?

No, the perp was a coach. No players were involved.

 

[Slydell]

So, a coach did these unspeakable crimes and it should be no concern of the NCAA? I may be getting confused with the degree of criminality here when a sanctioning body throws out punishments for someone getting a free meal but shouldn't have anything to do with this. But, I'm an NCAA hater from way back. That system has been busted for a long time.

 

[bamawriter]

So, a coach did these unspeakable crimes and it should be no concern of the NCAA? I may be getting confused with the degree of criminality here when a sanctioning body throws out punishments for someone getting a free meal but shouldn't have anything to do with this. But, I'm an NCAA hater from way back. That system has been busted for a long time.

We could have endless discussions about what should or shouldn't be against the NCAA rules. But, I would think a "NCAA hater" would be opposed to the NCAA arbitrarily punishing actions that are not even mentioned in the rulebook.

 

[Slydell]

We could have endless discussions about what should or shouldn't be against the NCAA rules. But, I would think a "NCAA hater" would be opposed to the NCAA arbitrarily punishing actions that are not even mentioned in the rulebook.

Don't they either make or interpret rules on the fly? Not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

 

[bamawriter]

Don't they either make or interpret rules on the fly? Not trying to argue just for the sake of it.

They have arbitrarily enforced rules since their inception. They have never before arbitrarily given themselves authority to punish rules that don't exist.

 

[voldawgforever]

Eff Penn St., and all those that turned their heads for that child molester.

 

[governmentmule]

why should they lift the penalties ? it happened on the college campus,with a coach involved and to me there was a cover up for years, not to even mention what happened to the young men,so why ? to me it is just saying no problem your school makes money and it is needed,so it is OK, that's a load of crap,stick to your guns NCAA,why bend on this?this makes you look weak and i don't care what you say,it was disgusting and now they are being let off the hook,that's why bamawriter

 

[aredfox28]

This is what I've been trying to get through to bamawriter.. thank you

 

[TrueOrange]

Reduced sanctions against Penn State Nittany Lions is NCAA's tacit acknowledgment it originally overreached - ESPN

NCAA president Mark Emmert can explain until he turns Nittany Blue that the NCAA eased its sanctions against Penn State as a reaction to the university's good behavior. And on its face, that's true. Penn State has begun implementing the change in athletic culture that the NCAA demanded when it threw the Nittany Lions under its jail for the Jerry Sandusky scandal.

The decision to begin restoring football scholarships, Emmert said in a hastily called teleconference Tuesday, is "solely a recognition of the very good work that has been done by the Penn State leadership and their willingness to drive change."

But the decision to begin restoring football scholarships to coach Bill O'Brien is a tacit acknowledgment that the NCAA sanctions constituted an overreaction that diminished the organization in the eyes of its member schools and the public. That sound coming from University Park, Pa., is a bell unringing.

Here's the meat and potatoes: Instead of three more years of granting 15 initial and 65 total scholarships, O'Brien will be allowed to restore five per year in each category. Penn State will return to the NCAA maximum of 25 initials in 2015-16, and a team limit of 85 the following year. The other sanctions -- the $60 million fine, four-year postseason ban and the five-year probation -- remain intact.

Emmert said the decision followed the recommendation made by former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell, the independent athletics integrity monitor appointed by the NCAA to oversee a change in the Penn State athletic culture.

Here's how much the case has shifted. In the press release of July 23, 2012 announcing the sanctions, the NCAA set forward no conditions by which it would consider easing the penalties. In fact, it said the exact opposite. After demanding that the university execute the recommendations set forward in the Freeh Report, the NCAA added, "(T)he university is subject to more severe penalties if it does not adhere to these requirements or violates NCAA rules in any sport during this (probationary) time period."

Ah, the Freeh Report. Commissioned by the university, and leaning heavily on the integrity of former FBI director Louis Freeh, the report said authoritatively that university officials, including the late coach Joe Paterno, knew that Sandusky was a danger to children and did nothing to stop him, fearing bad publicity.

It turns out that key portions of the Freeh Report had the shelf life of the fruit that grows in Penn State's orchards. It turns out that many athletic administrators wondered why the NCAA decided that it had jurisdiction in the Penn State case, especially without bothering to launch an investigation. The NCAA, without the trust of its member institutions, has raised questions about its authority to govern those institutions.

The Penn State case, the O'Bannon lawsuit, and the bollixing of the Miami case, which has gone on so long that even Inspector Javert said, "Enough already," all have eaten away at the foundation of the NCAA.

So a year has passed, and instead of threatening Penn State with more penalties, the NCAA is taking some of the sanctions away. In their zeal to pick up torches and pitchforks, Emmert and the presidents who run the NCAA not only damaged Penn State, but hurt their organization, too. Cooler heads needed to prevail, and there wasn't a cool head in the house.

By clutching to the robes of Sen. Mitchell, the NCAA bought some integrity. Mitchell declared earlier this month in a report that Penn State has executed significant change in its athletic culture. On Tuesday, Mitchell recommended that the penalties be modified "to the extent that [the NCAA] deemed appropriate." He called it "positive change for a positive action."

It would have been simpler to do it right the first time.

 

[TrueOrange]

Reducing scholarship sanctions reveals more about NCAA enforcement than Penn State Nittany Lions behavior - ESPN

NCAA president Mark Emmert didn't see the boulder sitting behind him on that July day when he announced unprecedented sanctions against Penn State.

But it was there, waiting for someone to get it rolling.

The bungled Miami investigation gave it a good tap, followed by a decent shove from Ed O'Bannon and, finally, the last bit of oomph, courtesy of Johnny Manziel.

Now the NCAA isn't so much Sisyphus, helplessly rolling the boulder back up the hill, as it is an ant, watching it tumble at full blast and scurrying away in the hopes of not getting steamrolled.

While explaining the decision to reduce the scholarship penalties against Penn State, Emmert insisted this was unprecedented action for unprecedented circumstances.

Nothing the NCAA does can be taken in a vacuum. As much as the organization likes to preach about individual cases and unique decisions, it is, as it also likes to remind us, a membership organization. Its actions -- or, more accurately its reactions -- always encompass the greater good.

This decision says as much about where the NCAA is today as the tough stance taken just 14 months ago defined the organization then.

There is less of an appetite for a punitive and righteous NCAA than there ever has been. The public doesn't want cheaters, but it has seen how the collegiate sausage is made and doesn't like the current rulebook any more than the cheaters. From APU armbands to dissecting investigative reports, the culture has changed -- and changed dramatically.

Between those shifting tides, jabs and body blows from frustrated conference commissioners, and lawsuits coming at it from every angle -- O'Bannon on behalf of athletes, the Paterno family on behalf of Penn State -- the NCAA is at a critical crossroads that may end up as a fight for its very livelihood.

That's why Emmert came out earlier this week promising big changes to the NCAA's governance structure; that's why this announcement came on Tuesday.

And that's why three months ago, Michigan State president and NCAA Executive Committee chairwoman Lou Anna Simon hinted that change was coming.

When asked to revisit the Penn State decision, as part of a broader question on Emmert's tenure as a leader, Simon admitted that both the NCAA and Penn State caved to external pressures when they agreed to the hefty sanctions.

"I think the Penn State issue that was done, there was an outcry to do something and do it quickly,'' she told ESPN.com. "…At the time, the decision was to accept the Freeh Report and not have the NCAA separately investigate. That sure seemed like a good decision at the time.

"I think now it might have been handled differently by both parties. … In hindsight, you have to decide how much the public outcry pushed both sides in a process that was unconventional. It wasn't just the NCAA but Penn State that was the focus of this public outcry.''

She added that if the same case was to come before the executive committee today, it probably would have come to a different conclusion. "Hopefully, with some of the changes in the [NCAA] enforcement process that are part of the structure agreed to, we would have been able to act differently,'' she said.

That's where we are now -- trying to do business differently because the NCAA has to do business differently.

In January, the NCAA will gather for its annual convention, an event that usually houses as much news as a gathering of diaper-training toddlers.

This will be different.

Most everyone agrees that there needs to be some sort of dispassionate third party to govern things. The anarchy in college sports makes the Wild West look bashful.

But there is a groundswell of opinion, bordering on a coup, that the current model is outdated and out of touch. From the NCAA's complicated rulebook to the entire concept of amateurism, the very essence of the organization is up for discussion and restructuring.

When Emmert became NCAA president, he promised to be a tough enforcement cop. "We need to make sure our penalty structure and enforcement process imposes a thoughtful level of concern, and that the cost of violating the rules costs more than not violating them,'' he said in 2011.

Which is why the Penn State decision was supposed to be his moment. Here was a powerful and strong NCAA flexing its enforcement muscle in the wake of an unimaginable scandal.

Instead, the announcement served as his Waterloo, the first crack of the lid on Pandora's box. Instead of patting the NCAA on the back, people questioned the organization's authority to levy such punishments. They wondered why Penn State football players, who were no more than children themselves when the crimes were perpetuated, were paying for something they had nothing to do with.

And then along came the mess at Miami, which made the NCAA look as conniving as the connivers, and Ed O'Bannon, who opened everyone's eyes to the financial disparity between the real haves (the universities) and the have-nots (the players). Finally, Johnny Football came under fire for having the audacity to allegedly profit from his own name.

So here we are, dialing back punishments and arguing it has nothing to do with anything save Penn State's good behavior, when in reality it has everything to do with the state of the aggravated NCAA union.

The boulder is rolling downhill now, gaining speed every day. It's up to the NCAA to decide if it wants to reroute it or get run over.

 

[bamawriter]

why should they lift the penalties ?

Because they never should have imposed them to begin with.

it happened on the college campus,with a coach involved and to me there was a cover up for years,

Can you point to the NCAA bylaw that covers crimes committed by coaches/administrators on campus? Just the reference number would be fine if you don't want to copy and paste.

not to even mention what happened to the young men,

Can you explain to me how the NCAA is better equipped to deal with criminal behavior than the criminal justice system? Every person involved with the crime or cover up is either in prison, headed to prison, or dead. Since you find that inadequate, I'd appreciate an explanation as to how it's inadequate.

so why ? to me it is just saying no problem your school makes money and it is needed,so it is OK, that's a load of crap,

Who is saying it's "no problem"?

stick to your guns NCAA,why bend on this?this makes you look weak

So, letting Cam Newton, Johnny Manziel, North Carolina, and Miami off the hook doesn't make the NCAA look weak? But backing off penalties that were never warranted and were issued without due process suddenly makes the NCAA look impotent?

and i don't care what you say,it was disgusting and now they are being let off the hook,that's why bamawriter

Again, every individual involved in the crime or cover up is in prison, headed to prison, or dead. Who is being "let off the hook"?

This is what I've been trying to get through to bamawriter.. thank you

I pose all of the above questions to you, as well.

 

[TrueOrange]

There's also a podcast/video on the website of the second article link I posted. Deals with this issue also

 

[TXA&M07]

Any of yall catch McNabb this morning talking about how they "deserved the death penalty" but "SMU didnt deserve it."

Listen, I've really tried hard to watch FoxSports1 but any thing that has McNabb in it is damn near unwatchable. Maybe since they have recognized that he's not all that good at this job, they've set him up to be the contrarian kinda like Skip Bayless is. More of just playing a role instead of providing genuine "thought".

However, I'm afraid he actually believes that crap he says.

As stated several times over, the Penn State deal was a legal matter, not a NCAA matter. Penn State's program was taken behind the woodshed once they canned the President, Joe, and the AD.

It's cool if you disagree, but keep in mind, those players did nothing wrong here and suffered for someone elses crime. I've been pretty high and mighty about how toothless the NCAA actually is lately, but this may be one example where they realized they we're out of line. For that and only that, I'll commend them.

In the mean time, track down that video of McNabb and enjoy the full on display of ignorance.

 

[governmentmule]

i don't care what you say jo pa and the crew were involved in it some way shape or form,we all agree on that ?I'm not really concerned with the players that have came after,that is there decision,to me,it is just saying it is ok,go ahead and lets run business as usual,that is what bothers me the most,there not being held accountable,so i guess it is ok what went on,not to me

 

[bamawriter]

i don't care what you say jo pa and the crew were involved in it some way shape or form,we all agree on that ?

Yes, we agree on that. Sandusky committed the crimes, and Paterno, Schultz, Spanier, and Curley helped cover the crimes up.

Sandusky will spend the rest of his days behind bars, Paterno is dead, and Schultz, Spanier, and Curley have all been fired and are all awaiting trial.

I'm not really concerned with the players that have came after,that is there decision,to me,it is just saying it is ok,go ahead and lets run business as usual,that is what bothers me the most,there not being held accountable,so i guess it is ok what went on,not to me

You seem to think that the people involved were only held accountable by the NCAA's penalties, and I cannot figure out why you think that. Or is it that you think NCAA sanctions are worse than prison?

 

[Volfan76]

This is what I've been trying to get through to bamawriter.. thank you

Don't waste your time on bamawriter. Anybody that would go defending a cover up of children being sexually molested has some serious problems. I thought bamawriter was just an idiot...turns out he's a complete scumbag.

 

[bamawriter]

Don't waste your time on bamawriter. Anybody that would go defending a cover up of children being sexually molested has some serious problems. I thought bamawriter was just an idiot...turns out he's a complete scumbag.

That's right. I don't think the NCAA should be involved in punishing criminal behavior, and I'd prefer to let the legal system punish the offenders. That means I'm defending the cover up of child rape.

 

[Velo Vol]

An assistant coach abused minor boys, so we should cut the number of the school's football scholarships, because obviously this gave it a competitive advantage.

Makes sense.

 

[bamawriter]

An assistant coach abused minor boys, so we should cut the number of the school's football scholarships, because obviously this gave it a competitive advantage.

Makes sense.

I'm guessing you're in my camp: you're totally okay with child molestation.

 

[TXA&M07]

i don't care what you say jo pa and the crew were involved in it some way shape or form,we all agree on that ?I'm not really concerned with the players that have came after,that is there decision,to me,it is just saying it is ok,go ahead and lets run business as usual,that is what bothers me the most,there not being held accountable,so i guess it is ok what went on,not to me

First off its "they're" and secondly who in the hell are you referring to? The current coaching staff? The current players?

 

[TXA&M07]

I'm guessing you're in my camp: you're totally okay with child molestation.

He didn't even hint at that. You're stirring a pot for no good reason.

No one condones child molestation in this thread and rational people dont condone the NCAA acting as judge, jury, and punisher when it comes to LEGAL matters.

Signing autographs for $ - NCAA business
Molesting kids - State of Pennsylvania business.

Its not that hard to figure out.

 

[bamawriter]

He didn't even hint at that. You're stirring a pot for no good reason.

No one condones child molestation in this thread and rational people dont condone the NCAA acting as judge, jury, and punisher when it comes to LEGAL matters.

Sorry you missed my sarcasm. I was referring back to this pleasant little exchange from eariler:

Don't waste your time on bamawriter. Anybody that would go defending a cover up of children being sexually molested has some serious problems. I thought bamawriter was just an idiot...turns out he's a complete scumbag.

That's right. I don't think the NCAA should be involved in punishing criminal behavior, and I'd prefer to let the legal system punish the offenders. That means I'm defending the cover up of child rape.

 

[TXA&M07]

I saw that as soon as I re-read it. My apologies bud.