masthead.jpg

switchconcepts.com, U3dpdGNo-a25, DIRECT rubiconproject.com, 14766, RESELLER pubmatic.com, 30666, RESELLER, 5d62403b186f2ace appnexus.com, 1117, RESELLER thetradedesk.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER taboola.com, switchconceptopenrtb, RESELLER bidswitch.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER contextweb.com, 560031, RESELLER amazon-adsystem.com, 3160, RESELLER crimtan.com, switch, RESELLER quantcast.com, switchconcepts , RESELLER rhythmone.com, 1934627955, RESELLER ssphwy.com, switchconcepts, RESELLER emxdgt.com, 59, RESELLER appnexus.com, 1356, RESELLER sovrn.com, 96786, RESELLER, fafdf38b16bf6b2b indexexchange.com, 180008, RESELLER nativeads.com, 52853, RESELLER theagency.com, 1058, RESELLER google.com, pub-3515913239267445, DIRECT, f08c47fec0942fa0
July 27, 2012

“Authority to Act”

Filed under: Coaches,Football,Media,Opponent(s) — Reed @ 10:04 am

Can we please put to rest the asinine argument that the NCAA somehow over stepped its authority to levy sanctions against Penn State for PSU’s actions during Sandusky’s period of committing child abuse and for their role in covering that up?

We have read time and again in the past five days from people who don’t agree with what happened that Mark Emmert and the NCAA boards circumvented established NCAA bylaws when they determined that PSU was responsible and thus punishable in regards to the findings of the PSU commissioned and accepted Freeh Report.  It is complete misdirection by Penn State apologists and by others who fear that the same type actions could be levied against their schools for similar infractions.

May I suggest these people go to the source itself to see just how the NCAA arrived at their decision making and for what basis they had in doing so?  I believe that the most vocal protesters of the NCAA’s actions in this case don’t want to read or discuss what is found there for fear they would lose a public platform to try to keep Penn State’s reputation, such as it is now, intact.

If anyone has a computer and two working fingers one can find the NCAA’s Constitutional References that PSU did not comply with in this case and how that non-compliance was used as a basis for NCAA sanctions.  These are listed under the NCAA’s “Authority to Act” explaination.  Thus is the meat behind this statement from Emmert at his press conference before he announced the sanctions on Monday:

Our Constitution and bylaws make it perfectly clear that the Association exists not simply to promote fair play on the field, but to insist that athletics programs provide positive moral models for our students, enhance the integrity of higher education, and promote the values of civility, honesty and responsibility.  The sanctions we are imposing are based upon these most fundamental principles of the NCAA.

With these intentions in mind, the Executive Committee, the Division I Board and I have agreed to the following sanctions…

In addition there is a huge misconception and/or outright refusal to believe the basis regarding the NCAA’s statement as follows:

There has also been much speculation on whether or not the NCAA has the authority to impose any type of penalty related to Penn State.

Not only does the NCAA have the authority to act in this case, we also have the responsibility to say that such egregious behavior is not only against our bylaws and Constitution, but also against our values system and basic human decency.

Lets look at that again. “…that such egregious behavior is not only against our bylaws and Constitution, but also against our values system…”  Try as they might PSU apologists can’t avoid the fact that NCAA clearly states what they are doing, why they are doing it and through what authority they hold in doing it.  Ironically, that authority was given to the NCAA by the member schools themselves, including PSU.

Each and every NCAA member university and school knew and accepted these bylaws as written years ago and ratified at regular intervals.  What the opponents of the NCAA actions want to do is express shock and dismay that the regulations, which have been on the books forever, are actually being used to levy sanctions against a university that broke them.  The horror of it all!

Some people just can’t believe there are any responsibilities that coaches and administrators at NCAA member schools have that can’t be concretely listed.  They need to see that a coach knew that Player X was paid $xxx dollars to play for Podunk State or that coach Y played an ineligible player during a specific season.  But that isn’t all that the member schools signed up for when they applied to and were accepted for NCAA membership.

It is true that the NCAA set a precedent in their decisions and actions here.  However that precedent was set based on established requirements which were not changed or modified to fit the situation.  Not at all, they were just being used as a basis for serious sanctions for the first time.  Some people have to be shown that exactly the same thing happened before they accept something, but that isn’t how things work in the regulatory and compliance world.

If it is on the books it is enforceable, plain and simple.

There can be valid differences of opinion on whether the Penn State sanctions were too harsh or too lenient but there can be no doubt that the NCAA levied those sanctions in accordance with their given authority and the established regulations and bylaws.

The schools themselves gave the NCAA the power to act and now have to accept the fact that the NCAA did so.





Both Zeise and Peak think the NCAA had no right to do this. They are both WRONG. Too lenient was the punishment if you ask me.

Comment by TX Panther 07.27.12 @ 10:11 am

Reed, I read in the Sports Illustrated “We Were Penn State” article, that all they parties knew about the 1998 allegation and after the 2001 incident, Curley Spanier and Schultz were prepared to go to the authorities, when Joe Paterno talked Curley out of doing so. The article goes on to talk about 2004 when Spanier and Curley went to Joe Patereno’s house to ask him to step down, only to be told get off his yard, as an example of who called the shots at Penn State.

Comment by Justinian 07.27.12 @ 10:16 am

I felt the same way about the penalties as Zeise and Peak, but as I learn more about everything, I have tempered that position. I understand both arguments and I realize that none of this is easy for anyone.

Comment by Justinian 07.27.12 @ 10:23 am

The reason that the sanctions are so controversial is that they are unprecedented. In the past, sanctions were always levied in reference to recuting violations and giving the violator an unfair advantage .. mostly focusing on illegal payments/benefits or academic fraud.

AS Reed pointed out, it is in the NCAA bylaws for members to provide a moral example. Frankly, the NCAA just never imposed sanctions primarily for this, but then again, they never came across such egregious behavior.

It needs to be clear that the NCAA imposed sanctions not directly because of what Sandusky did, but what the Fab 4 didn’t do. If they would have behaved like any normal decent human being wuld have back in 2001, PSU would never have received any sanctions.

Comment by wbb 07.27.12 @ 10:39 am

Simply put, any legal entity is empowered to protect and defend its Constitution from attack and violations by its members.

Peak has made a fool of himself. Perhaps he is one, perhaps not. Regardless, he has lost my respect.

Comment by sfpitt 07.27.12 @ 10:49 am

Just to add to the confusion, I think some of the critics (intentionally or not) are confusing the questions of (i) whether the NCAA has the actual authority to levy these sanctions, (ii) whether the NCAA is being hypocritical in levying these sanctions (i.e., whether it has the moral authority to do so), and (iii) whether the NCAA should have or was required to follow “due process” prior to levying the sanctions. These are in fact three separate issues, but I hear people like Zeise using rationale for one to support a position on another, which doesn’t necessarily make logical sense. As Reed points out, the answer to the first question is contained in the NCAA bylaws and cannot be attacked simply because the NCAA has not been consistent in past enforcement.

On another matter, if I hear one more former PSU player or apologist claim that the current players/students/fans shouldn’t be punished for something that occurred over a decade ago, I just might scream. While the initial act of the coverup occurred over a decade ago, it continued every day until the Freeh Report was issued, and in the minds of some, it still continues today. There is a total lack of acceptance of this among that part of the alumni/fan base that is speaking publicly. Additionally, while they appear to be genuinely revolted at Sandusky, many seem to have no sense of revulsion at the inaction and coverup of Paterno and company. From an outsider’s perspective, that is infuriating.

Comment by Pantherman13 07.27.12 @ 10:56 am

To put things in perspective about control, not too long ago at Pitt, a well liked head football coach was fired and a contributing factor to his firing involed off the field incidents with players. That’s quite a difference from a coach refusing to listen to the University president and Athletic Director and telling them to get off his lawn.

Comment by Justinian 07.27.12 @ 11:11 am

Peak and Zeise clueless

Comment by 63Team 07.27.12 @ 11:13 am

Spot on Reed and we both agree there was a dual purpose for the sanctions. 1) To tear down not only the diseased CULTure at PSU and hit its Big Time Football Program with sanctions which are more debilitating in scope than the DP and also to ensure the program is severely weakened for years to come (aka brought down to size so to speak). 2) Also as many in he media have said IT IS a warning shot to all Big Time Football Programs to inform them they are a PART of a university’s culture and are no more important than any other facet of said university irrespective of both the money they create and the attendant cult like hero worship given to them.

Once again I mphatically say the current roster and recruits ARE NOT victims. They and their parents had a free choice to make in selecting PSU. The real victims in this saga had no choice because they were coerced by a pedophile whom was impowered by the cult of personality PSU football had become.

Comment by Kenny 07.27.12 @ 11:29 am

***emphatically***

Comment by Kenny 07.27.12 @ 11:33 am

penn state football employed the convicted felon, penn state football was the bait for him to lure his victims into his clutches, penn state football facilities were utilized to commit child sexual abuse acts by the convicted for years, penn state football leaders buried the truth once discovered and protected the child abuser, the cover up undertaken by the highest ranking members of the universities administration did so to protect the reputation of the penn state football program at the expense of past and future victims and the overall culture of penn state football produced a society that condoned such rationalization.

Therefore I JUST don’t understand what the Sandusky conviction or the Freeh report has to do with penn state football or why the NCAA ever got involved in these unrelated issues in the first place that produced their sanctions. Poor penn state football, what did we do to desire this? YEH, RIGHT, DUH???????

Comment by Dr. Tom 07.27.12 @ 11:37 am

@kenny–Further,losing, or reducing in quality, a form of entertainment may be perceived by those effected as a punishment. But, the reality is no student (who should be attending primarily for an education anyway) or fan of a college sports team is entitled to be entertained through that team’s success. It is sports and entertainment, nothing more, and it will do these disappointed folks good to learn that important life lesson.

Comment by pitt1972 07.27.12 @ 12:09 pm

It’s like taking a nasty tasting medicine to get well. It’s not enjoyable, but its in you best interest to hold your nose and swallow it down with minimal complaint. To do otherwise is to act like a spoiled young child.

Comment by pitt1972 07.27.12 @ 12:14 pm

Just realize that PSU players, apologist, et all are of the same CULTure that bred and nurtured this cover-up. I make the same analogy to business all the time…

If XYZ company breaks federal laws because the CEO is dirty, the company is going to be punished not just the CEO. You can feel sorry for the employees who’s wages/benefits/bonuses are at risk to be cut or eliminated all together, but the fact of the matter is the authorities in these situations need to take serious action to prevent further wrong doing.

I think that the NCAA has given the current kids a lot of options to help lessen any impact on them. They have about a YEAR to decide if they want to leave without penalty, they can leave the football program for personal reasons and still maintain scholarship at PSU to earn a degree if they so chose, they can STILL attend and play football at PSU if they so chose.

I think the NCAA did a fantastic job of issuing stern and effective sanctions with small avenues to lessen the impact and collateral damage to the current players and their families.

Comment by BCPITT 07.27.12 @ 12:30 pm

If the worst thing that ever happens to the current players is they play D-1 BCS football at PSU but don’t get to play in the bowl game then I think they will have a damn good life ahead of them!

Comment by BCPITT 07.27.12 @ 12:33 pm

Wbb – your point that the NCAA wasn’t punishing PSU for Sandusky’s actions is purposefully being overlooked by many of the PSU apologist who are screaming that “We shouldn’t be punished for what one man did!!

What they fail to acknowledge is that had this been a professor of business doing this and Paterno and Curley weren’t the main players in the cover up then the NCAA wouldn’t be involved at all.

Pantherman – I think you are right with your example of those three issues being confused. Items #1 and #3 are clear cut and need no defense (even though I just did that in this article).

Item # 3 refers to due process but that can, and was, suspended by the NCAA executive boards in this case – with PSU’s permission. This statement in the NCAA’s Board Committee Executive Motion.

“Pursuant to authority under NCAA Constitution and Bylaw 4.1.2(e) to resolve core issues of Association wide import, the NCAA President is hereby authorized to enter into a consent decree with Penn State University that contains sanctions and corrective measures related to the institution’s breach of the NCAA Constitution and Bylaws and core values of intercollegiate athletics based on the findings of the Freeh Report and Sandusky criminal trial.”

The key phrase here is “authorized to enter into a consent decree with Penn State University that contains sanctions and corrective measures“. Penn State themselves authorized the NCAA to shorten the process when they signed the consent decree.

Again, people either are too lazy to actually read about how this was done or just don’t want to believe it. There is no “due process” necessary if both parties agree as to the outcome.

It is item #2 where perhaps some debate may be made but I refute it in that just because something was never done before doesn’t mean it is ‘hypocritical’ to do so. What people fail to realize is that is a real sense using the Ethics clause had been addressed before when the NCAA sanctioned both Baylor’s BB Head Coach Bliss and OSU’s Tressel with “Show Cause”. To wit:

“The NCAA also imposed a 10-year “show-cause penalty” on Bliss for “despicable behavior” and “unethical conduct.” This means that until 2015, any NCAA member school that wants to hire Bliss must report to the NCAA every six months stating that he is in compliance with any restrictions the NCAA imposes on him, unless that school can demonstrate that Bliss has served his punishment. It is the most severe penalty the NCAA can hand a coach.”

Tressel got a five year show cause for the same reasons. This is a ‘death penalty’ for these coaches to ever work in D1 again as no school will take the chance that the person wouldn’t break the rules again and bring heavy sanctions onto the school itself.

All of this is really cut and dried if one looks at the situation dispassionately and takes the time to educate oneself as to how these sanctions really unfolded. But that’s asking too much when it is easier to cry like a baby that it happened at all.

Comment by Reed 07.27.12 @ 12:56 pm

Here’s the deal with Peak and Zeise and every other media type who has jumped into this with both feet without actually understanding the situation.

This is a chance to have their opinions heard on the grand stage and they are taking the opportunity and running with it.

Chas and I spout off with our opinions on here and are willing to discuss other opinions and viewpoints – the radio and TV talking heads won’t allow any ideas but the one’s they already hold.

Comment by Reed 07.27.12 @ 1:08 pm

I listen to Sirius College Sports radio in my car. For the last several days I have listened to “expert” guests on various shows talk about how this has “opened the door” for the NCAA to issue similar harsh punishments for wrong doing by University personnel…I say rubbish! There is plenty of precendent to deal with most any normal situation (recruiting violations, players paid, bogus grades, etc.). This situation at PSU set an all new bar for unbelieveable behavoir by powerful people inside and outside of the football operation at a major University. Yes, the next time a current/former coach rapes young boys in a major university’s showers, and then the Head Coach, the AD, a VP, and the University Pres burry the story while the abuse goes on, we have a precedent for the punishment. I’m thinking we will never see the need for such an action by the NCAA again….Kenny, I agree with your comment about the dual purpose of the sanctions, but I think there is a third equally important purpose: I think that the Freeh Report and the NCAA sanctions sent a simple but pointed message to all of Sandusky’s victims, especially the one who screamed for help from the monster’s basement. That message is: We hear you, and we’re going to something about it. The same could not be said for PSU’s fab four.

Comment by HbgFrank 07.27.12 @ 1:34 pm

Reed:
You are right about Zeise and Peak. Zeise has to appear to be objective and Peak is looking for his next job.
My only solution is to ignore both.
The PG will not exist in 5 years and Peak may have the affirm now, but candidly he isn’t very good, notwithstanding this issue.

Comment by SFPitt 07.27.12 @ 3:08 pm

Just had a beer w/ PSU alum in Healdsburg , CA. Didn’t mention a thing aboutPSU. Is that a cover up?

Comment by Bones 07.27.12 @ 7:50 pm

On a very pleasant note – Pitt taking over

link to profootballhof.com

Frank MD

Comment by Frank 07.27.12 @ 10:35 pm

I am tired of hearing about the innocent players being victims. I discussed this subject with Mark Packer and Houston Nutt on XM radio stating that recruiting is a buyer beware situation. Houston Nutt asked me “if it was your son who was in that situation “What would I do?” I told Houston Nutt that I would tell my son that he must do what is best for him. If he feels like he wants to finish his career with his teammates under sanctions, that is the penalty for his choice to go to PSU. If he wants to transfer I will help him to find a good fit for him. If he was a recruit who had committed to PSU, I would tell him that he had to find a new school if it was important to him to play in bowl games or for conference championships. Mr. Packer and Coach Nutt were shocked that I could have that opinion.
Finally, what many of the apologists are forgetting is these guys did not make “a bad decision/mistake” by concealing their knowledge of the situation. They committed a CRIME according to the Clery Act. They “self-reported” the crimes to the NCAA via the Freeh Report, a report that they financed, authorized as sign off on as being representative of the issues. The NCAA reviewed the Freeh/PSU self-report and said here is your punishment based on your self-report. Again, PSU representatives agreed to the sanctions. Aplogists can whine all that they want. Your own university agreed to everything as being accurate and agreeable. End of debate.

Comment by jw in Raleigh 07.28.12 @ 11:20 pm

jw – Agreed. I’ll also add that these men didn’t make one mistake. They made 5110 mistakes as they woke up each morning since 1998 and decided to keep this horrible secret for another day.

Comment by Reed 07.29.12 @ 9:32 am

Can we please put to rest the asinine argument that the NCAA somehow over stepped its authority…

I SECOND THE MOTION. FK’em

Comment by Neil 07.29.12 @ 6:47 pm

Powered by WordPress © PittBlather.com

Site Meter