Around the Big Ten

[UMStan White]

The NCAA is going to give Penn State the 'death penalty" then force them to refield a team one year later, hit them with four years of bowl bans and only ten scholarships a year, then hit them with the "death penalty" again. That, my friend Is unprecedented!

Seriously with a likelybowl ban two of the best teams from the other division will be ineligible for the CCG setting up a crap game like the Pac 12's CCG last year. That ain't gonna be no money maker!

[Mike]

Well, it looks like a good year for us to make the CCG now doesn't it!?

[lineygoblue]

Not keen on scholarship bans though here

I agree with Tony. I don't think that the punishment emphasis should be on scholarships. Maybe a minor hit of 2-3 per year for about 3 years, but no more than that.

Hit them where it really hurts. Make them remove Paterno reminders just like we had to remove the Fab Five banners. Then, a post-season ban for at least 2 seasons, and a requirement to destroy the building that Sandusky committed his crimes in, and build a completely new facility.

Requiring full background checks on all athletic department employees wouldn't be a bad idea either.

[Dr. Strangelove]

The "unprecedented" part comes from the fact that the NCAA is stepping into uncharted territory. They will not be punishing specific NCAA violations but something more like general bad conduct by one of its members.

Like I've been saying, you can't simply cite a school for LOIC. There's no such thing. LOIC is only a factor AFTER you declare the school to be in violation of an actual NCAA rule. The NCAA is now greatly expanding it's authority by declaring itself to have the authority to levy punishment on affairs that are fully criminal, and not related to competition on the field. And Penn State appears to be going along with it, because there's no way they'd be announcing a punishment already unless the BOT proposed a punishment and the NCAA agreed.

My guess is it'll be the harshest penalties on a school since the SMU case. And from comments made in a few articles, it will go beyond athletics.

[Mike]

I'm might make a bowl of popcorn and get up extra early to watch the announcement.

[Tony G]

How would the NCAA extend punishment beyond athletics?

[WM Wolverine]

Looks like OSU won't have much competition in the East for awhile and benefits as much as anyone by PSU's loss of scholarships...

Yes, PSU football benefitted from this by not reporting this. It's an NCAA issue.

[Rob F]

I plan on watching at 9 am, but really have no idea what to expect. If PSU's new administration has any balls, though, it will be them---not the NCAA---that pulls the plug on the football program, for at least 2 if not 3 years.

What happened over the last 14 (or maybe more?) years at Penn State must NOT be tolerated or minimized. A lot of people are crying "unfair" at the possibility of innocent athletes and employees of PSU being punished, but there are ways to mitigate their losses. The poor children who were abused? The suffering they endured at the hands of that monster and his enablers will never be fully undone.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Looks like OSU won't have much competition in the East for awhile and benefits as much as anyone by PSU's loss of scholarships...

Yes, PSU football benefitted from this by not reporting this. It's an NCAA issue.

How did Penn State gain an unfair advantage by not reporting it? What edge did it give them against other schools?

I still contend that no actual advantage was created, they were preventing a disadvantage from becoming known. Those aren't the same thing. At least not IMO

The authority the NCAA is claiming here is no different than if they chose to punish Arkansas for what Petrino did. But they won't. Why? Because there's no public pressure and bloodlust to see that school destroyed.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I plan on watching at 9 am, but really have no idea what to expect. If PSU's new administration has any balls, though, it will be them---not the NCAA---that pulls the plug on the football program, for at least 2 if not 3 years.

What happened over the last 14 (or maybe more?) years at Penn State must NOT be tolerated or minimized. A lot of people are crying "unfair" at the possibility of innocent athletes and employees of PSU being punished, but there are ways to mitigate their losses. The poor children who were abused? The suffering they endured at the hands of that monster and his enablers will never be fully undone.

The NCAA didn't even conduct an investigation. And remember that PSU hired Freeh on their own. I think it's almost certain that PSU and the NCAA agreed to whatever is being announced tomorrow. There's no way this would've all happened so fast if they weren't involved.

[Tony G]

A lot of people are crying "unfair" at the possibility of innocent athletes and employees of PSU being punished, but there are ways to mitigate their losses. The poor children who were abused? The suffering they endured at the hands of that monster and his enablers will never be fully undone.

And punishing the coach and players that were not there will do nothing to ease the victims hurt either. The focus and cause of that pain are the four who were laden with the mantel of blame in the Freeh report.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Sources: NCAA president to hit Penn State with 'staggering' penalties from Sandusky scandal

The NCAA is set to levy the first presidential sanctioning in the association?s history on Monday when it will impose what one source termed ?significant? and ?staggering? penalties against the Nittany Lions' football program in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Yahoo! Sports has learned.

Two sources with knowledge of the Penn State penalties said NCAA president Mark Emmert will announce Monday that he is personally sanctioning Penn State after receiving approval from the association?s Division I Board of directors, which is comprised of 22 college presidents and chancellors. One source told Yahoo! Sports Emmert?s sanctions will include a ?multiple-year? bowl ban and ?crippling? scholarship losses. Penn State will not receive the "death penalty."

The move will mark a first in NCAA history, in which the president will invoke a defense of the NCAA?s constitution as part of his reasoning for taking the unprecedented steps. The moment is groundbreaking in that Emmert is circumventing typical NCAA process and moving forward without an investigation by his enforcement staff. However, Emmert is expected to detail that the action is backed by a special provision allowing such a step if he receives approval from the NCAA?s board of directors. A source told Y! Sports the NCAA is prepared to defend the lack of an investigation by focusing on the Freeh Report, and Emmert?s determination that the report provided actionable evidence.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf--sources--ncaa-president-to-hit-penn-state-with--staggering--penalties-from-sandusky-scandal.html

[JRB]

I thought the NCAA would take substantive action against Penn State. I was hoping for sanctions targeted at the individuals responsible. I would have supported permanent show-cause penalties against Spanier, Curley and Schultz, perhaps a vacation-of-wins penalty against Paterno's record(as meaningless as that would be, it would be the only available step to take against Paterno), disgorgement of profits during the time of Penn State's cover-up, and a lengthy probation with mandated structural changes to Penn State's athletic administration. These penalties would not have overstepped NCAA authority, and they would have protected the NCAA's right to act in similar cases in the future. I could have even supported a one-year suspension of the program. I would have preferred to see Penn State take that step, as an unprecedented act of penance resulting from unprecedented institutional failure, rather than the NCAA. I acknowledge that this would be fundamentally unfair to the current players and coaches, but I could have accepted an NCAA ruling enforcing a program suspension, provided that it came as the result of a finding of lack of institutional control by the Committee on Infractions. This process would have allowed for a lengthy and meaningful discussion of the NCAA's role in this fiasco by, in effect, a jury of Penn State's peers. It would have slowed the rush to judgment against the university and its football program, at least at the NCAA level, and resulted in a more credible penalty.

What appears to be happening here, however, I cannot support. There is no need to abrograte NCAA enforcement procedure here, and the decision to grant Mark Emmert summary judgment power in this case smacks of an organization that cares more about "protecting the brand"(odious phrase) than it does about confronting the difficult issues presented by this case. I disagree with Talent and DSL that no specific NCAA violation occurred here. If the ethical conduct clauses (NCAA Bylaw 10.1 and 11.1.1) can be applied to almost anything, as DSL asserts, then they can certainly be applied to the appallingly unethical conduct found here. I disagree with the contention that calling the institutional misconduct that occurred here actionable under NCAA rules is an unwarranted expansion of NCAA power-- the reason rules and laws with wide-ranging interpretations come into being in the first place is to provide for unforeseen circumstance. The NCAA did not spell out criminal conduct in its list of prohibited acts in 10.1, but I don't think that can be construed as a concession of any authority to act when confronted with such acts. Rather, I don't think anyone could foresee a circumstance in which a member institution would fail to do its civic duty with respect to ongoing criminal conduct. NCAA enforcement proceedings have addressed this. From the 1995 ruling against the University of Miami:

The institution disputed its responsibility for the extra benefits because they resulted from the criminal actions of an employee. Although NCAA by-laws do not address criminal behavior, that does not preclude the finding of an NCAA violation resulting from or related to criminal activity.

Now, that was an extra-benefits case, but Miami tried to argue that it couldn't be punished for isolated criminal behavior that ran afoul of NCAA rules, and that argument was rejected out of hand. If you take Bylaws 2.4 and 10.0.1, or just simple human decency, as guiding instruction, Jerry Sandusky's predations could be construed as violations of Bylaw 10.1, as would Penn State's subsequent obfuscations and administrative failures. The NCAA, IMO, has worded those rules to give the organization leeway to protect the integrity of intercollegiate sports. It may well be grandstanding, but the NCAA has given itself the right to grandstand on this matter.

It does not follow, however, that the NCAA is right to grandstand in this particular manner. In fact, I think the course the NCAA seems to be taking here is manifestly dangerous. My interpretation of the NCAA's purview in this case is certainly debatable, and the matter merits official debate within the NCAA membership. But, to make an admittedly inappropriate analogy, the NCAA has responded to the Penn State horror by turning Mark Emmert into its version of Chancellor Palpatine. This action is about as coherent as the plot of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, and as that film angered, confused, and disappointed its constituents, this action, IMO, will eventually provoke a backlash against the NCAA from its membership-- a backlash that conceivably could damage the NCAA's authority beyond repair. Any NCAA member institution has to be concerned with an organization that grants its president "emergency powers" so that one member school can be punished without a completed NCAA investigation, an infractions hearing before the membership, or, presumably, an appeal procedure(has anyone seen how Penn State is supposed to contest this decree tomorrow if they find it unjust? I haven't yet.) I am only guessing, but I have to suspect that if Penn State finds Emmert's decision unacceptable, the university will have limited recourse, and will face enormous and conflicting public pressures concerning its response. In any case, the NCAA's decision here invites a challenge to the NCAA's authority to punish member institutions, since the organization willfully jettisoned its enforcement procedure in this case. Many would, no doubt, welcome such a challenge, as the NCAA has met with withering and increasing criticism in recent years(much of it justified). I've always been a defender of NCAA enforcement-- not because I agree with NCAA rules and decisions across the board, but because I am not encouraged by the thought of collegiate sports without a strong governing body. The NCAA's decision here to throw out its own procedures in order to satisfy the perceived need to punish Penn State is not the act of a strong governing body, and the proposed actions here somehow manage to seem both overly draconian(with respect to their effects on players, coaches, and fans going forward) and uselessly trivial(as a means of redress for the crimes committed). I maintain that the NCAA has the right to act in this case, but if this is the best judgment the NCAA could come up with, then I wish they'd stayed out of it.

[JRB]

According to reporters I trust(Bruce Feldman, etc.), there seems to be a deal between the Penn State administration and the NCAA concerning this punishment. The Penn State administration understandably wants to put out what fires it can at this point, and has agreed to accept this ruling and the damage it will cause. I'm not sure I'd have been that accommodating to the NCAA, and I still think this ruling sets a dangerous precedent that invites challenge to the NCAA's authority, but it appears that challenge will not come from Penn State.

[entropy]

I heard PSU will be forced to play all their games on the longhorn network, hence the worse than the death penalty comments..