Around the Big Ten

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for the reply, dsl ........

Instead, the examples of "unethical activity" are ALL related directly to the eligibility of student-athletes.

I believe this is the underpinning evidence in support of your position that the NCAA has no authority to pursue PSU in the matter of the Sandusky/Paterno affair.

If Sandusky had committed his crimes off campus, I would agree with you. However, he committed those crimes on campus and 4 PSU employees, including the HC and AD knew that he was committing them.

I also agree with you that the unethical conduct clauses of the NCAA ByLaws are vague and open to interpretation. That, however, does not invalidate them or make it impossible for the NCAA to apply them in the Paterno/Sandusky affair. Of course, this ignores the NCAA incompetence argument but I don't think, in the final analysis, that matters. The NCAA is a governing authority that has a public duty to regulate the activity of its members. Whether they are competent at it is another matter.

In the UCMJ, Article 133 (Conduct unbecoming ..... unethical conduct) is also fairly vague and can be applied to a wide range of behaviors. The point is that organizations wishing to hold members to a higher standard of behavior than the general public (one of the things the NCAA is trying to do with its ByLaws) has a public and civic duty to apply the ByLaws it writes and members agree to abide by.

There is plenty of room for debate on this subject. I think the most compelling argument for NCAA involvement would contain these key points: (1) The credibility of the NCAA is on public trial in this matter. The NCAA is NOT going to sit on the sidelines on this one. (2) This isn't a matter of stealing money, cheating on your wife or lying; it involves in our culture the most egregious crimes committed by an employee of PSU who was directly involved with the football program at the time the crimes were committed. (3) The public's cry for accountability here is going to ultimately drive the NCAA's position on this.

[iam416]

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/15/sports/ncaafootball/penn-state-scandal-poses-tough-choices-for-ncaa.html?pagewanted=all

[Tony G]

There seems to be no precedent for NCAA intervention in this case.

A thought to ponder, how would the NFL respond to a situation like this? They are the closest situation to offer a possible comparison. If all the responsible persons were purged from an organization would Goodell still go after them? I don't know.

[Jeff Buchanan]

I took some time to look at some of the precedent on the matter of unethical conduct (10.1) and how violations of that ByLaw have been adjudicated by the NCAA.

First, it's important to understand that LOIC is ALWAYS based on a rules violation. So, that has to occur before LOIC can be assessed. Reading the lay press, it's apparent that not many people understand that as it pertains to loud calls for the NCAA to get involved.

Second, I could find nothing that, as dsl and talent assert (among others who have opined here), that supports the view that unethical conduct under 10.1 includes the crimes that Sandusky committed and the cover-up of those crimes that the others named in the Freeh Report perpetrated.

Third, the NCAA has worded the ByLaw (10.1) such that the definitions given it within 10.1 are not limiting to other such conduct that the NCAA might deem unethical under 10.1. There's room for interpretation much like there is in the UCMJ Article 134 (Conduct unbecoming ......, brings discredit and so forth). The UCMJ does not specify that one can get tossed for a DUI. It allows the Commander who has jurisdiction over the person charged with a violation of Article 134 and the Judge Advocate wide latitude in determining what is and what is not unethical. However, in the case of the DOD, there is a large body of legal precedent to guide a decision. Charging PSU with a violation of 10.1 would, as has been argued correctly here, be new territory for the NCAA.

Being a Michigan man always characterized as honest and fair, I wanted to point this out to our osu friends here.

However, I stand by the three points I made above as mitigating toward a decision by the NCAA to use the latitude inherent in 10.1 for defining unethical conduct and then provide a Notice of Allegations to PSU that it is alleged they have violated ByLaw 10.1.

Given the current environment, the NCAA is going to have to do a lot of tap dancing and have a spokesman that is eminently gifted in powers of persuasion and clear talk (not Emmert) to explain why the NCAA is not going to get involved with the Sandusky/Paterno affair. Of course, they could wait until the fire dies down which is exactly what I think they will do (to their detriment in my view but that's another discussion).

The PSU Board of Trustees could do the NCAA (and the rest of us) a big favor by doing the following and doing it quickly:

Take the banners down. I draw this parallel to what M did in the Fab Five debacle to suggest PSU should remove from the campus proper all official effigys and memoriams for Joe Paterno. Place an appropriate plaque in an appropriate location (not the showers!) memorializing the victims of Jerry Sandusky's sexaul abuse with words to the affect, "never again."

Establish a mechanism by which all funds above those required to operate the PSU athletic department's sports programs, be diverted to a general fund such fund to monitored by a separate accounting firm. The purpose of the general fund is to disburse gifts to organizations that support prevention of child abuse and/or provide services to sexually abused children and adults. The period of this program will be 12 years.

Leave the rest of this mess to the courts, let the NCAA file a NOA with PSU alleging a violation of 10.1, have PSU appear before the infractions committee, present it's self imposed penalties as above, have the NCAA add a monitoring presence to see to it that PSU has taken concrete and measurable steps to insure nothing like this ever happens again, game over.

Let's move on.

[Tony G]

Place an appropriate plaque in an appropriate location (not the showers!) memorializing the victims of Jerry Sandusky's sexaul abuse with words to the affect, "never again."

That one is off base. I won't comment on the others but the victims don't need a plaque to remind them and they probably want the rest of the world to not memorialize them. Just my 2 cents

[Jeff Buchanan]

Thanks for that input, Tony .....

You are clearly better equipped to comment on the plaque thing than most. I respect your input. The plaque is not a good idea. Forget that part.

[whodean]

Pac-12/Big Ten model falls apart



With the Pac-12 agreement dead, the Big Ten will consider increasing its conference games per year from eight to nine, ESPN.com has learned.

Disappointing, but I guess word of the conferences working together just wasn't going to work. More conference games will be a good thing though.

[iam416]

Good post, Jeff. The NYT article I linked makes many of the same points. I don't blame people for wanting to see PSU burn by all means, but that's not what I think should happen. I do think the NCAA will get involved for better or worse.

[Tony G]

BTW, instead of a plaque, leave paterno's statue up but outfit him with a blind person's glasses and a cane.

[entropy]

http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/15/us/triponey-paterno-penn-state/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

The woman who stood up to Joe Pa

[Rob F]

Thanks for that link, Entropy!

All I can say after reading that long piece you linked is...

WOW!

That article completely blows the rest of the lid off the "culture" that existed at PSU. Halfway thru reading it, I was thinking that on the outskirts of Happy Valley, they might just as well have erected a billboard that read "Welcome to Stepford!" , the parallels are so strong and frequent. You either went with "the Penn State Way", willingly or otherwise, or you were chewed up and spit out.

No doubt in my mind whatsoever right now, that whatever penalties that are coming PSU's way, whether thru criminal and/or civil court, whether self-imposed or imposed by the NCAA and/or Big Ten, they deserve them ten-fold!

[Jeff Buchanan]

Not surprising at all ...... Paterno notoriously had a "dark side." Didn't he have a confrontation with a PSU Security person over running a stop sign or something like that? Showed has ass, if I remember, asking the guy, "do you know who I am.?

In the CNN article linked above, I think there is enough of a nexus there connecting disciplinary approaches for football players versus students that might interest the NCAA.

Don't know which ByLaw applies but there is probably one about players getting preferred treatment when it comes to the Student Code. If the NCAA wants to get involved, this may be a good reason to do so.

Cleaning up the "culture," as critical as that seems to be up there in Happy Valley, is a tough nut to crack. I doubt in will happen and I'm pretty sure the NCAA won't get involved in any way with that.

[lineygoblue]

I think of all the times that television sports commentators played along with the "Penn State Way". All those times they showed Joe in the press box with the head set on, and saying things, "I wonder what old Joe had to say to his staff about THAT call"... or some other such stupid thing ............. then seeing that his headset had no microphone on it.

All image, ... no thump.

[WM Wolverine]

Talent,

This absolutely is an NCAA issue, you think Penn State didn't benefit by not reporting this? It was advantageous to not report it, whether they did that to protect Sandusky or protect the football program...

If Sandusky is caught in '98, that certainly affects Paterno's ability to recruit, doesn't it? It also affects his own job status. Yes, this is certainly an NCAA issue.

[Tony G]

This absolutely is an NCAA issue, you think Penn State didn't benefit by not reporting this?

Such involvement would be unprecedented. Has the NCAA ever stepped in before on a civil/criminal case and delivered sanctions?