The Freeh Report and the Future of Penn State

[Terpsfan82]

So you are calling for "no football program for 10 years". And you think that is an appropriate response?

I'm all in favor of burning the perps (and we know who they are) at the stake. They were responsible. But I'm not in favor of carpet bombing an institution because it may have benefitted financially from the football program thriving.

Yes. Absolutely. When the cover up goes beyond the athletic program and spills over into other areas of the university, then yes. Take it all away.

[purplepoe]

And there are STILL PSU supporters who are claiming that this thing is overblown and that it's the media's fault.

Simply amazing.

PP

[seraph]

The PSU forums are amazing right now.

[edtude]

Fine let's not kill the football program. Let them continue to play and compete. Let's take all revenues for the next 10 years generated by the football program and donate them to the appropriate charity. Penn State benefitted financially from criminal acts and this is the only way to ensure that real change will be made on that campus.

[HoustonRaven]

Looks like the school is sticking with the "Head up our own Asses" approach to scandal.

According to reports, all of the student services TV's were abruptly switched to another channel when the Freeh report was released.

[Terpsfan82]

Looks like the school is sticking with the "Head up our own Asses" approach to scandal.

According to reports, all of the student services TV's were abruptly switched to another channel when the Freeh report was released.

Wow. Just. Wow.

[Shas]

No one is saying that those involved should - in any way - be less punished.

I'm just not sure that the NCAA is the appropriate authority in this situation.

You are correct that the NCAA deals with recruiting violations, etc., but they are not the authority to dole out punishment for criminal violations. This is new territory for the NCAA, and I'm not sure which - if any - of the NCAA's rules have been violated.

An interesting debate about who should be the responsible investigator, prosecutor and judge when it comes to the actions of Penn State administrators.

I would maintain that the NCAA does monitor the operations of its member-institutions' athletic departments in areas that go well beyond garden-variety recruiting violations.

What's been alleged is that leadership in and above the athletic department actively covered up Sandusky's crimes in an attempt to "humanely" allow him to end his behavior and his future with the team -- which we now know didn't work, as the crimes continued under their noses.

And now, in a recent WSJ story, there are new allegations made by Vicky Triponey, the university's standards and conduct officer, who has presented evidence that she sent an email to Pennsylvania State University President Graham Spanier and others, complaining that Paterno insisted that she should have

no interest, (or business) holding our football players accountable to our community standards. The Coach is insistent he knows best how to discipline his players…and their status as a student when they commit violations of our standards should NOT be our concern…and I think he was saying we should treat football players different from other students in this regard.

What I see are two different, but related, issues where the NCAA may have an obligation to investigate and possibly discipline the PSU athletic program. For all the horror of the Sandusky revelations, it may actually be the latter issue that gives the NCAA it's way into this mess.

So, the question remains, should either of these issues, or both, become the NCAA's business?

When the NCAA comes knocking at your door there are two iconic phrases that cause everyone -- mob-joiners or otherwise -- to sit up and take notice. And those are "death penalty" and "lack of institutional control." The go together, the latter leading to the former.

So, was this a case where PSU's athletic department lacked institutional control? Look at how the NCAA defines this concept...

In determining whether there has been a lack of institutional control when a violation of NCAA
rules has been found it is necessary to ascertain what formal institutional policies and procedures
were in place at the time the violation of NCAA rules occurred and whether those policies and
procedures, if adequate, were being monitored and enforced.

To reiterate, to start investigating,

1. Has an NCAA rule possibly been violated?
2. Did the institution have adequate procedures in place to avoid violations?
3. Were these procedures ignored or altered?

An interesting side-note is that a university can get nailed for not adequately monitoring itself -- failure to have procedures in place. This is where "lack of institutional control" applies -- the NCAA doesn't care if bad stuff was being concealed, it maintains that if you can't police yourself, they will.

This was a long way of coming back to the question of whether the NCAA has rules that govern the behavior of assistant coaches when it comes to non-football stuff. It's akin to the morals clause in an NFL contract. If the NCAA does have blanket rules that govern coaches moral or criminal behavior, then they are obliged to investigate whether the university had proper procedures in place to monitor their coaching staff's behavior off the field, and if so, did they ignore it?

I don't have access to the NCAA rules; I suspect there are no rules governing coaches moral behavior.

However, I'm willing to bet there are rules that say coaches can't protect players when they have violated the university's contact code. That's what Triponey alleges Paterno did, and if the athletic department didn't have procedures in place to stop it, or they ignored it, then the NCAA will surely come down on them.

[Shas]

Looks like the school is sticking with the "Head up our own Asses" approach to scandal.

According to reports, all of the student services TV's were abruptly switched to another channel when the Freeh report was released.

Brent Hollander on WBAL radio did an excellent interview with Jayne Miller (the TV investigative reporter) on this topic. She grew up in Happy Valley, went to school there, and just ran an unsuccessful campaign to get elected to their board of trustees. In the interview with Hollander she talked about the head in the sand attitude that prevails. She spoke of how she's been actively advising on PR issues and it sounds like its fallen on deaf ears. She talked about the need to "pull the band-aid off quickly" and take the pain now -- come completely clean, otherwise, the program is going to crash.

[festivus]

Two thoughts:

1. I am not familiar enough with the NCAA disciplinary process to know whether anything that happened is actually subject to disciplinary action. If anything is, I suspect it would involve Sandusky transporting some of his victims around as part of his grooming process, taking them to games and so on. I just don't know how far NCAA authority extends.

2. Assuming for a moment that the NCAA *can* take action here, Penn State can be done with football for a couple years.

Sure, the criminal justice system can (and did) reach the most culpable parties, and punishing these pieces of shit does not undo the harm they did, but... Officials at Ohio State and Miami and Oregon and USC and all the other programs should know that the *program* will suffer when you cross some lines. If the NCAA can discipline Penn State and chooses not to because the wrongdoers are being punished, it is condoning the practice of lax oversight and willful ignorance and institutional obedience to the coach that made this tragedy possible.

[NOLARavenFAN]

If Sean Payton got a year for Bounty-gate, what should Penn State get for this? I think the message has to be firm and substantial......

[Ravenswintitle]

If they don't self impose penalties the NCAA will have to step in but so far they have shown the 'head in sand' approach.

The President Graham Spanier is still a faculty member and the boardof trustees is still intact.

One thing I think this report will bring is a LOT of civil suits costing them dearly

[B-more Ravor]

2. Assuming for a moment that the NCAA *can* take action here, Penn State can be done with football for a couple years.

Sure, the criminal justice system can (and did) reach the most culpable parties, and punishing these pieces of shit does not undo the harm they did, but... Officials at Ohio State and Miami and Oregon and USC and all the other programs should know that the *program* will suffer when you cross some lines. If the NCAA can discipline Penn State and chooses not to because the wrongdoers are being punished, it is condoning the practice of lax oversight and willful ignorance and institutional obedience to the coach that made this tragedy possible.

There's no question in my mind that if the NCAA can, within its rules, punish Penn State, they will. I really don't think that's an issue at all. It's just a matter of whether they can or not, without going so far outside of their own rules that it could be overturned in a lawsuit.

When the NCAA comes knocking at your door there are two iconic phrases that cause everyone -- mob-joiners or otherwise -- to sit up and take notice. And those are "death penalty" and "lack of institutional control." The go together, the latter leading to the former.

For what I've read - and assuming it's accurate - the NCAA guidelines only allow the death penalty for repeat offenders - ie those schools that have been found in violation previously. While this current situation has certainly been revealed to be a long-standing pattern of repeated misconduct, I'm not sure that it sufficiently fits into the rule related to the death penalty or could be successfully argued that it fits within the meaning of those rules.

[B-more Ravor]

If they don't self impose penalties the NCAA will have to step in but so far they have shown the 'head in sand' approach.

Personally, I think the University should self-impose a 4- or 5-year hiatus for the football progam and release all of the present players from their scholarship.

Unfortunately, that would be very bad timing for those guys to find new schools at this point of the year.

[B-more Ravor]

Fine let's not kill the football program. Let them continue to play and compete. Let's take all revenues for the next 10 years generated by the football program and donate them to the appropriate charity. Penn State benefitted financially from criminal acts and this is the only way to ensure that real change will be made on that campus.

I understand what you are saying, but you've also got to remember that many, many students and employees of the University - who had nothing to do with football, who could care less about football - also benefited from the money created by the football program.

But, the reality now is, IMO, that the football program - if it continues - will be nowhere near the revenue generator that it has been over the last several decades. PSU is going to get far less quality recruits and the school, in general, is going to get far less applicants and donations. Football or not, the University, as an entity, is going to suffer greatly for this, there's no question about that.

And, that doesn't even take into account what the Dept of Ed may do.

[OC Bob]

The legal system needs to take harsh measures against those in the know.

The NCAA needs to send an extremely strong message to PSU and the other universities as whole that illegal activity is not acceptable activity.

Finally, PSU should garner no monetary gain for their football program that they tried to protect. If they are not suspended, then they should not be able to receive income for the program for a given period of time. All profits for the football team should be channeled to the victims, victims rights groups, etc...

[esmd]

I agree with Ravor. This is bigger than a football program. Every person at the school who had knowledge of the situation should be charged criminally to the fullest extent of the law. If Paterno were still alive, he would be included in this group. The school should have to pay restitution to the victims. Steep restitution. But to have the NCAA penalize the football team itself is below the scope of this disgusting case. The money the football program brings in can be diverted towards the restitution fund for the victims. Besides, the repurcussions of this will supercede any penalty the NCAA could impose. What high level recruit would want to go there anytime in the immediate future?

[festivus]

There's no question in my mind that if the NCAA can, within its rules, punish Penn State, they will. I really don't think that's an issue at all. It's just a matter of whether they can or not, without going so far outside of their own rules that it could be overturned in a lawsuit.

I agree with that 100%.

We need to remember there are limits to NCAA authority; that's all I was saying. This may be a university matter but not a NCAA matter.

[camdenyard]

I agree with Ravor. This is bigger than a football program. Every person at the school who had knowledge of the situation should be charged criminally to the fullest extent of the law. If Paterno were still alive, he would be included in this group. The school should have to pay restitution to the victims. Steep restitution. But to have the NCAA penalize the football team itself is below the scope of this disgusting case. The money the football program brings in can be diverted towards the restitution fund for the victims. Besides, the repurcussions of this will supercede any penalty the NCAA could impose. What high level recruit would want to go there anytime in the immediate future?

Agree completely.

[psuasskicker]

Punish those who deserve it but don't make others pay for their sins, that's the tricky part

You can't, if you're the NCAA. All the people who were involved are no longer with the program.

But when boys are told by a Penn State coach, Sandusky, that they need to give him sexual favors if they wish access to the team and it's facilities, certainly there is something in the NCAA's prevue that would justify a punishment on that level.

I don't know that there are. A good example I heard the other day... The IRS cannot punish a murderer as long as the murderer has paid his taxes in a timely fashion. I don't think the NCAA has anything in their provisions that accounts for this.

And there are STILL PSU supporters who are claiming that this thing is overblown and that it's the media's fault.

As long as people don't paint all of us with that brush, I understand that. I spent a good bit of the day fighting with people who's claims are that Paterno can't be shown to be 100% without a doubt certainly involved in covering up the incident via actively convincing Curley/Schultz/Spanier that they should not go to the DPW in the matter.

And while that's true to the letter of it, there are several problems in this argument...

1) No, we can't be 100% certain. That said, it's extremely likely he helped convince Curley to change his mind on the matter, who in turn helped convince Schultz and Spanier.

"Curley emails Schultz and Spanier and says he [Curley] has changed his mind about the plan "after giving it more thought and talking it over with Joe [Paterno] yesterday." Curley now proposes to tell Sandusky "we feel there is a problem" and offer him "professional help." "If he is cooperative we would work with him to handle informing" the Second Mile; if Sandusky does not cooperate, "we don't have a choice and will inform DPW and the Second Mile." "Additionally, I will let him know that his guests are not permitted to use our facilities."

People are arguing with me that this isn't dead-fast proof that he did it, because Freeh never got to interview Paterno and it's possible Curley's conversation with Paterno didn't involve Paterno trying to convince him not to report the matter. Okay, I get the whole "We'll never know with 100% certainty" argument. But that said, I think this fits the bill for "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is what you need in a court of law.

2) Even if Paterno didn't try to convince Curley, he still stuck his head in the sand. Not good enough, Joe.

3) He very clearly perjured himself when he told the grand jury that he had no knowledge of any incidents prior to the '01 shower incident, as it's very clear from this report that he knew about the '98 incident.

The NCAA can hit the school with lack of institutional controls. And bullshit to the people that argue that this wasn't a football issue...one of the major reasons they hid it to try to avoid tarnishing the football program's reputation.

That said, death penalty? Um, no. I make the odds on the school getting the death penalty to be less than 1%, probably by a lot. While it is somewhat a football issue, it is FAR more a school-wide issue. I think it's 50/50 whether the NCAA will have the stones to actually pull the trigger on any sanctions at all. There are far bigger school issues that need to be resolved here. The '98 incident was investigated by the police and reported properly. The '01 incident was a person not involved in the football program that was assaulting the boys. Had Paterno never been told about it, this wouldn't at all be a football issue. There's arguments that can be made on both sides of the coin, and while I think some punishment for the football program would be deserved, I think the death penalty is more laughable a penalty than no sanctions at all.

- C -

[srobert96]

You can't, if you're the NCAA. All the people who were involved are no longer with the program.



I don't know that there are. A good example I heard the other day... The IRS cannot punish a murderer as long as the murderer has paid his taxes in a timely fashion. I don't think the NCAA has anything in their provisions that accounts for this.



As long as people don't paint all of us with that brush, I understand that. I spent a good bit of the day fighting with people who's claims are that Paterno can't be shown to be 100% without a doubt certainly involved in covering up the incident via actively convincing Curley/Schultz/Spanier that they should not go to the DPW in the matter.

And while that's true to the letter of it, there are several problems in this argument...

1) No, we can't be 100% certain. That said, it's extremely likely he helped convince Curley to change his mind on the matter, who in turn helped convince Schultz and Spanier.

People are arguing with me that this isn't dead-fast proof that he did it, because Freeh never got to interview Paterno and it's possible Curley's conversation with Paterno didn't involve Paterno trying to convince him not to report the matter. Okay, I get the whole "We'll never know with 100% certainty" argument. But that said, I think this fits the bill for "beyond a reasonable doubt," which is what you need in a court of law.

2) Even if Paterno didn't try to convince Curley, he still stuck his head in the sand. Not good enough, Joe.

3) He very clearly perjured himself when he told the grand jury that he had no knowledge of any incidents prior to the '01 shower incident, as it's very clear from this report that he knew about the '98 incident.

The NCAA can hit the school with lack of institutional controls. And bullshit to the people that argue that this wasn't a football issue...one of the major reasons they hid it to try to avoid tarnishing the football program's reputation.

That said, death penalty? Um, no. I make the odds on the school getting the death penalty to be less than 1%, probably by a lot. While it is somewhat a football issue, it is FAR more a school-wide issue. I think it's 50/50 whether the NCAA will have the stones to actually pull the trigger on any sanctions at all. There are far bigger school issues that need to be resolved here. The '98 incident was investigated by the police and reported properly. The '01 incident was a person not involved in the football program that was assaulting the boys. Had Paterno never been told about it, this wouldn't at all be a football issue. There's arguments that can be made on both sides of the coin, and while I think some punishment for the football program would be deserved, I think the death penalty is more laughable a penalty than no sanctions at all.

- C -

Agreed with this post. Death penalty does not make sense. I would have liked to have seen PSU self penalize the football program. Admitting that it got out of hand with the control put in the Joe's hands. Along with some type of penalty a set of rules and governance over football to ensure that there is never a repeat. As a penalty maybe a loss of some schollies and maybe donate post season funds from next two bowl games to a charity or something like that. I am guessing the school has some concern over conceding anything with the future litigation from the victims.