Non-horrible Sandusky thread to discuss PSU sanctions (1 Viewer)

[renesauz]

The team is too important to you.

No...justice is too important to me. Punish the guilty, spare the innocent.I can live quite easily without PSU football being competitive...it's barely a blip.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

PSU fans would get a lot more sympathy if they would learn to just shut the hell up sometimes.

 

[cobalt_27]

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible.

Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, individually and apart from their high-ranking roles at Penn State, could not have gotten away with covering up Sandusky's actions. They would have been just 4 guys. They did all this while employed in high-ranking, powerful positions by Penn State. Through this employment they had the means at their disposal to cover up, to not report, to allow harm to continue. And that is why they could get away with it for so long. Penn State allowed that.

Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but in any organization, anywhere in any field, there's ALWAYS going to be a few well-placed individuals who could cover something like this up. To say Penn State allowed that as if it was a cultural anomoly is a straw man. I agree in principle that when the well placed trusted individuals do wrong, the organization bears some responsibility, because they represent the organization.I'm not disputing that PSU the organization deserves punishment. I question whether the NCAA is the proper authority to do so in this case, but I get it, and can accept it. HOW they punish is what I find so wrong. PAterno deserves punishment, the school deserves punishment...the students and the TEAM do not. If the NCAA has the authority to levy a 60 MILLION dollar fine, which goes right to the heart of what universities get from their football programs...than why is it necessary to punish the team directly when the team itself recieved no unfair benefit? Why not make it 100 million and leave the team alone? The extra 40 million would do more good to charities anyway. This is a philosophical argument more germaine to discussions about the NCAA itself than this specific incident.

(By the way...I am a PSU fan, but not generally a college football fan. I only watch 2 or 3 PSU games a year on TV...this is hardly going to effect me a great deal personally.

The school was punished, but you can't divorce the fact that students and athletes are going to be harmed by any punishment to the organization/university with which they are associated. It's unfortunate collateral damage, but there's no escaping it. And, in fact, I would make the argument that this appropriate level of punishment should serve as a call to all universities who have dominant, if not omnipotent, football programs. Trustees, students, professors, administrators all should be more vigilant against unyielding power...lest they too may become the next victims in a scandal initiated by those who have been granted immunity from internal, organizational/administrative scrutiny and oversight. This is the painful lesson from Paterno and Penn State.Can't really "spare the innocent.". Unfortunately, Paterno and Penn State put everyone in harm's way...in a variety of ways. This is their fault, not the NCAA, who did exactly the right thing.

 

[renesauz]

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible.

Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, individually and apart from their high-ranking roles at Penn State, could not have gotten away with covering up Sandusky's actions. They would have been just 4 guys. They did all this while employed in high-ranking, powerful positions by Penn State. Through this employment they had the means at their disposal to cover up, to not report, to allow harm to continue. And that is why they could get away with it for so long. Penn State allowed that.

Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but in any organization, anywhere in any field, there's ALWAYS going to be a few well-placed individuals who could cover something like this up. To say Penn State allowed that as if it was a cultural anomoly is a straw man. I agree in principle that when the well placed trusted individuals do wrong, the organization bears some responsibility, because they represent the organization.I'm not disputing that PSU the organization deserves punishment. I question whether the NCAA is the proper authority to do so in this case, but I get it, and can accept it. HOW they punish is what I find so wrong. PAterno deserves punishment, the school deserves punishment...the students and the TEAM do not. If the NCAA has the authority to levy a 60 MILLION dollar fine, which goes right to the heart of what universities get from their football programs...than why is it necessary to punish the team directly when the team itself recieved no unfair benefit? Why not make it 100 million and leave the team alone? The extra 40 million would do more good to charities anyway. This is a philosophical argument more germaine to discussions about the NCAA itself than this specific incident.

(By the way...I am a PSU fan, but not generally a college football fan. I only watch 2 or 3 PSU games a year on TV...this is hardly going to effect me a great deal personally.

The school was punished, but you can't divorce the fact that students and athletes are going to be harmed by any punishment to the organization/university with which they are associated. It's unfortunate collateral damage, but there's no escaping it. And, in fact, I would make the argument that this appropriate level of punishment should serve as a call to all universities who have dominant, if not omnipotent, football programs. Trustees, students, professors, administrators all should be more vigilant against unyielding power...lest they too may become the next victims in a scandal initiated by those who have been granted immunity from internal, organizational/administrative scrutiny and oversight. This is the painful lesson from Paterno and Penn State.Can't really "spare the innocent.". Unfortunately, Paterno and Penn State put everyone in harm's way...in a variety of ways. This is their fault, not the NCAA, who did exactly the right thing.

Well stated. Generally, most NCAA sanctions are about institutional control. If you're generally OK with their methods of sanctioning, there's no reason you wouldn't be OK with it in this specific case.I think I've articulated that I believe there's better methods which would cause just as much grief to the universities without affecting the innocent as much.

 

[Sinn Fein]

The school was punished, but you can't divorce the fact that students and athletes are going to be harmed by any punishment to the organization/university with which they are associated. It's unfortunate collateral damage, but there's no escaping it. And, in fact, I would make the argument that this appropriate level of punishment should serve as a call to all universities who have dominant, if not omnipotent, football programs. Trustees, students, professors, administrators all should be more vigilant against unyielding power...lest they too may become the next victims in a scandal initiated by those who have been granted immunity from internal, organizational/administrative scrutiny and oversight. This is the painful lesson from Paterno and Penn State.

Can't really "spare the innocent.". Unfortunately, Paterno and Penn State put everyone in harm's way...in a variety of ways. This is their fault, not the NCAA, who did exactly the right thing.

Stop calling the students and athletes "victims." It really demeans those who were victims in this case. Also - how exactly are current students and athletes being "punished"?

 

[renesauz]

Stop calling the students and athletes "victims." It really demeans those who were victims in this case. Also - how exactly are current students and athletes being "punished"?

Really? Anyone can be a victim. Nobody was trying to equate these differant victims. Nothing demeaning about recognizing that people other than the kids here are victims of this. And if you significantly decrease the ability of a team to compete...the athletes on that team ARE being punished. Whether or not the other students or fans are "punished" is a subjective argument not worth pursuing.

 

[cobalt_27]

The school was punished, but you can't divorce the fact that students and athletes are going to be harmed by any punishment to the organization/university with which they are associated. It's unfortunate collateral damage, but there's no escaping it. And, in fact, I would make the argument that this appropriate level of punishment should serve as a call to all universities who have dominant, if not omnipotent, football programs. Trustees, students, professors, administrators all should be more vigilant against unyielding power...lest they too may become the next victims in a scandal initiated by those who have been granted immunity from internal, organizational/administrative scrutiny and oversight. This is the painful lesson from Paterno and Penn State.

Can't really "spare the innocent.". Unfortunately, Paterno and Penn State put everyone in harm's way...in a variety of ways. This is their fault, not the NCAA, who did exactly the right thing.

Stop calling the students and athletes "victims." It really demeans those who were victims in this case. Also - how exactly are current students and athletes being "punished"?

Please don't attempt to educate me about the definition of who qualifies as a victim. The terminology is perfectly accurate. That some victims endure greater hardships, damage, mistreatment, injury, etc. is certainly relevant, and if you've read a single word of any of my posts, you would understand I'm the last one to minimize what those kids had to endure. Go pick another fight that's more interesting and relevant.

 

[mad sweeney]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

This is very fair. And, of course, there's a sense of pride in your school that would feel violated here, and it's natural to engage in mild forms of cognitive dissonance with all this.But...when it gets to the point where you say "at least we didn't cheat," implying that cheating is more tolerable than child rape (and toleration of and protecting the rapist). It's vile.

Yeah, I don't think anyone was doing that.

 

[Pick]

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that 3+ people with serious power let this happen (JoePa and president and VP if I remember right). Those guys probably did a lot of great things on their way up the ladder and while they had those jobs at Penn State. That would seem to indicate good judgement. But then to let this slide by and maybe even aid in it's coverup just blows me away.

 

[Trey]

After meeting with O'Brien on campus today, Hackenberg and Brenneman reaffirmed their verbal commitments..

You do have to give O'Brien credit. Saying and doing all the right things in the aftermath.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that 3+ people with serious power let this happen (JoePa and president and VP if I remember right). Those guys probably did a lot of great things on their way up the ladder and while they had those jobs at Penn State. That would seem to indicate good judgement. But then to let this slide by and maybe even aid in it's coverup just blows me away.

Yep, just hard to believe when you think about it. Explains why it's taken so long for some PSU fans/alum to come around.

 

[Furious Styles]

I'm very disappointed with the fact that there will be football at PSU this Fall and beyond. Basically the community is going to rally around this football program and everyone will place an inordinate amount of importance and pride in the program. A vast majority will do so without ever realizing it was this type of community behavior that helped to create an environment that allowed a monster to rape kids for decades.

 

[Doug B]

A vast majority will do so without ever realizing it was this type of community behavior that helped to create an environment that allowed a monster to rape kids for decades.

Disagree. This type of "community behavior" is common and a good thing. It's the cult of personality around one individual that becomes the problem. And there will almost certainly never be another Paterno-level figure in college football again -- definitely not at Penn State.

 

[cobalt_27]

A vast majority will do so without ever realizing it was this type of community behavior that helped to create an environment that allowed a monster to rape kids for decades.

Disagree. This type of "community behavior" is common and a good thing. It's the cult of personality around one individual that becomes the problem. And there will almost certainly never be another Paterno-level figure in college football again -- definitely not at Penn State.

You would agree, however, that this community behavior is not always benign, right? That it has the capacity for reckless behavior and disregard for basic human morality? I actually see this "community" activism having a frequent capacity to become overly-zealous in its enmeshed relationship with an organization (e.g., sports, political,, etc.); we have seen countless examples of community support over clrear wrong-doing...in support of the "team." I suspect this level of support is fueled by the threat of harm, shame, and punitive actions levied against an individual or organization, which by extension, the community takes ownership of and with whom it self-identifies.As the Freeh report concluded,

One of the most challenging of the tasks confronting the Penn State community is transforming the culture that permitted Sandusky’s behavior, as illustrated throughout this report, and which directly contributed to the failure of Penn State’s most powerful leaders to adequately report and respond to the actions of a serial sexual predator. It is up to the entire University community – students, faculty, staff, alumni, the Board, and the administration – to undertake a thorough and honest review of its culture. The current administration and Board of Trustees should task the University community, including students, faculty, staff, alumni, and peers from similar institutions and outside experts in ethics and communications, to conduct such a review. The findings from such a review may well demand further changes.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that 3+ people with serious power let this happen (JoePa and president and VP if I remember right). Those guys probably did a lot of great things on their way up the ladder and while they had those jobs at Penn State. That would seem to indicate good judgement. But then to let this slide by and maybe even aid in it's coverup just blows me away.

For the record, the three guys you mentioned (President, AD, and the Finance guy) didn't just "let it slide." They actively sought to cover this up, knowing full well what they were doing. Hopefully all three see prison time.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm very disappointed with the fact that there will be football at PSU this Fall and beyond. Basically the community is going to rally around this football program and everyone will place an inordinate amount of importance and pride in the program. A vast majority will do so without ever realizing it was this type of community behavior that helped to create an environment that allowed a monster to rape kids for decades.

Oh come on. This fall, millions of people will attend games and tailgate activities for their favorite college or pro football team. It gives them something to do on a Saturday or Sunday. Do some people take it a little too seriously? Probably, but if your biggest fault as a person is that you care just a little too much how the Steelers (or whoever) perform this week, you're living a pretty good life.

 

[fatness]

The team is too important to you.

No...justice is too important to me. Punish the guilty, spare the innocent.

You don't understand organizations very well. People band together in organizations to accomplish goals with an ability that far exceeds what they could do individually.If "the guilty" were Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky acting individually, they should be punished individually. But they weren't acting individually. They occupied positions of power in an organization -- Penn State -- that allowed them to accomplish much more, good or bad, than they could have accomplished individually. "The guilty" in this instance includes the organization that allows this.Either you do not understand this, or you're fine with organizations doing what they wish for their own benefit, and not being held accountable when they do wrong.Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Paterno, Sandusky could not have done this amount of harm at pickup games in someone's farm field.

 

[Pick]

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that 3+ people with serious power let this happen (JoePa and president and VP if I remember right). Those guys probably did a lot of great things on their way up the ladder and while they had those jobs at Penn State. That would seem to indicate good judgement. But then to let this slide by and maybe even aid in it's coverup just blows me away.

For the record, the three guys you mentioned (President, AD, and the Finance guy) didn't just "let it slide." They actively sought to cover this up, knowing full well what they were doing. Hopefully all three see prison time.

If they do time that will be the true deterrent.

 

[Furious Styles]

I'm very disappointed with the fact that there will be football at PSU this Fall and beyond. Basically the community is going to rally around this football program and everyone will place an inordinate amount of importance and pride in the program. A vast majority will do so without ever realizing it was this type of community behavior that helped to create an environment that allowed a monster to rape kids for decades.

Oh come on. This fall, millions of people will attend games and tailgate activities for their favorite college or pro football team. It gives them something to do on a Saturday or Sunday. Do some people take it a little too seriously? Probably, but if your biggest fault as a person is that you care just a little too much how the Steelers (or whoever) perform this week, you're living a pretty good life.

I was speaking about PSU but since you brought up Steeler fans they do seem to be able to openly cheer for a rapist simply because he is a winning QB. But hey, that girl was of legal age. Perhaps it is a PA thing.

 

[fatness]

I still can't wrap my mind around the fact that 3+ people with serious power let this happen (JoePa and president and VP if I remember right). Those guys probably did a lot of great things on their way up the ladder and while they had those jobs at Penn State. That would seem to indicate good judgement. But then to let this slide by and maybe even aid in it's coverup just blows me away.

For the record, the three guys you mentioned (President, AD, and the Finance guy) didn't just "let it slide." They actively sought to cover this up, knowing full well what they were doing. Hopefully all three see prison time.

If they do time that will be the true deterrent.

I don't think Spanier is charged with any crime, is he? I think he's suing Penn State, is still a tenured faculty member, and has some top secret job with the federal government now.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

I don't think Spanier is charged with any crime, is he? I think he's suing Penn State, is still a tenured faculty member, and has some top secret job with the federal government now.

"I suppose the guy has proven he can keep a secret. Maybe they’ve put him in charge of answering FOIA requests about drone strikes." — Balko.

 

[jurb26]

So, where did the "non-horrible PSU thread" go.

 

[fatness]

More information on the NCAA sanctions.

It was Thursday, July 19, and Alabama attorney Gene Marsh, hired days earlier by Penn State to manage its accelerating negotiations with the NCAA, settled in for an important phone call. Marsh was expecting a verbal rundown of proposed penalties that NCAA leaders had crafted. The NCAA was moving swiftly after the university’s findings that top administrators and head football coach Joe Paterno “actively concealed” child molestation allegations against Jerry Sandusky.

What Marsh got was worse than he imagined. In a prelude to the evolving list of sanctions, Marsh was told “the majority of the [NCAA’s] board of directors were still favoring the death penalty,” a shutdown of Penn State football for a season or more.

Erickson noted that his senior staff believed keeping the games going would minimize the impact on Penn State students, fans and the regional economy, and it would leave the program in a better position after the sanctions had run their course. “I think this was clearly the best course of action that thought about the largest number of people who were involved,” he said. Over the next three days, the final agreement was hammered out. There was almost no change in the penalties initially prescribed by the NCAA’s general counsel in that July 19 call. “No one should ever perceive this as being a negotiation,” Marsh noted. It would include a four-year ban on bowl games and other postseason play. It would allow players to transfer immediately if they wanted to. It contained a reduction in football scholarships and a $60 million fine. But in a victory of sorts for Penn State, there still would be football, and there still would be football on television.

Penn State had successfully pointed to its clean record in its sports programs, Marsh said. It got credit for commissioning the internal examination by former FBI Director Louis Freeh and letting his investigators have free rein to find what they could. It got credit for taking swift action to remove Paterno, Curley and President Graham Spanier shortly after Sandusky’s arrest. Spanier, emails disclosed in the Freeh Report have said, supported decisions not to report a witness account of a shower-room incident between Sandusky and a boy to university police or any other investigative authorities. Spanier, along with Paterno, who died in January, were fired. Curley was placed on leave, and Schultz retired.

And, finally, the university got credit for agreeing to its punishment. "Had Penn State not been as forthright and open about this, had Penn State not been as decisive as they were, I don’t know what the outcome would have been, but I suspect it would have been significantly worse,” Emmert said last week.

Imagine if the Paterno family had run the negotiations with the NCAA.

 

[Sinn Fein]

Penn State may end up with the death penalty yet.

Board of Trustees should be sued for malpractice imo.

 

[Norman Paperman]

Penn State may end up with the death penalty yet. Board of Trustees should be sued for malpractice imo.

We should start another PSU thread about it though.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

 

[IvanKaramazov]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

He's a troll. Par for the course.

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

I'm honestly at a loss how you and others could hold a position that the NCAA never had no role in this while are unable to form an opinion here??? But trying to guess what you need here is their website which includes a policies.Since I was the one that provide you the NCAA bylaws and held that discussion with you I can probably guess your reply. Other opinions were a bit more vagues. And I'd like to know if this organization is just butting in inappropriately or if things are perceived as being different? And if they are different why?

While an oversimplifying, does the Sandusky coverup reflect a failure of PSU to "define, maintain, and promote educational excellence"? Haven't the FFA threads already demonstrated that $60 million loss for NCAA, plus whatever from settling law suits can be covered by the PSU endowment?

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

I'm honestly at a loss how you and others could hold a position that the NCAA never had no role in this while are unable to form an opinion here??? But trying to guess what you need here is their website which includes a policies.Since I was the one that provide you the NCAA bylaws and held that discussion with you I can probably guess your reply. Other opinions were a bit more vagues. And I'd like to know if this organization is just butting in inappropriately or if things are perceived as being different? And if they are different why?

While an oversimplifying, does the Sandusky coverup reflect a failure of PSU to "define, maintain, and promote educational excellence"? Haven't the FFA threads already demonstrated that $60 million loss for NCAA, plus whatever from settling law suits can be covered by the PSU endowment?

Here you go:

An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following

attributes or activities:

Ø a chief executive whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution

toward the achievement of its goals and with responsibility for

administration of the institution;

Ø a chief executive with the combination of academic background,

professional training, and/or other qualities appropriate to an institution

of higher education and the institution’s mission;

Ø administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training

to carry out their responsibilities and functions;

Ø qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of

the institution;

Ø adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work

of administrative leaders;

Ø clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority; and

Ø periodic assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures and

services.

One of the big issues was who was in charge. If as many believe, JoePa was exercising control rather than the president and AD it brings into question the leadership of the institution, the lines of authority and the effectiveness of PSU's administrative structures.

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

I'm honestly at a loss how you and others could hold a position that the NCAA never had no role in this while are unable to form an opinion here??? But trying to guess what you need here is their website which includes a policies.Since I was the one that provide you the NCAA bylaws and held that discussion with you I can probably guess your reply. Other opinions were a bit more vagues. And I'd like to know if this organization is just butting in inappropriately or if things are perceived as being different? And if they are different why?

While an oversimplifying, does the Sandusky coverup reflect a failure of PSU to "define, maintain, and promote educational excellence"? Haven't the FFA threads already demonstrated that $60 million loss for NCAA, plus whatever from settling law suits can be covered by the PSU endowment?

Here you go:

An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following

attributes or activities:

Ø a chief executive whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution

toward the achievement of its goals and with responsibility for

administration of the institution;

Ø a chief executive with the combination of academic background,

professional training, and/or other qualities appropriate to an institution

of higher education and the institution’s mission;

Ø administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training

to carry out their responsibilities and functions;

Ø qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of

the institution;

Ø adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work

of administrative leaders;

Ø clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority; and

Ø periodic assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures and

services.

One of the big issues was who was in charge. If as many believe, JoePa was exercising control rather than the president and AD it brings into question the leadership of the institution, the lines of authority and the effectiveness of PSU's administrative structures.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

I'm honestly at a loss how you and others could hold a position that the NCAA never had no role in this while are unable to form an opinion here??? But trying to guess what you need here is their website which includes a policies.Since I was the one that provide you the NCAA bylaws and held that discussion with you I can probably guess your reply. Other opinions were a bit more vagues. And I'd like to know if this organization is just butting in inappropriately or if things are perceived as being different? And if they are different why?

While an oversimplifying, does the Sandusky coverup reflect a failure of PSU to "define, maintain, and promote educational excellence"? Haven't the FFA threads already demonstrated that $60 million loss for NCAA, plus whatever from settling law suits can be covered by the PSU endowment?

Here you go:

An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following

attributes or activities:

Ø a chief executive whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution

toward the achievement of its goals and with responsibility for

administration of the institution;

Ø a chief executive with the combination of academic background,

professional training, and/or other qualities appropriate to an institution

of higher education and the institution’s mission;

Ø administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training

to carry out their responsibilities and functions;

Ø qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of

the institution;

Ø adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work

of administrative leaders;

Ø clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority; and

Ø periodic assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures and

services.

One of the big issues was who was in charge. If as many believe, JoePa was exercising control rather than the president and AD it brings into question the leadership of the institution, the lines of authority and the effectiveness of PSU's administrative structures.

Sorry! So they are investigating whether PSU has reestablished the proper "institution controls". Other than their focus on "now" versus the NCAA's focus on the recent past, how is that different at all?

Relevant NCAA Bylaws per the NCAA.

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

If you're really interested in an answer to your questions why don't you give us the information we'd need to actually make that determination?Or are you just being snarky?

Like the information in the link?

The information in the link tells us nothing about whether this organization does have a role or whether there's a difference between it and the NCAA reviewing the situation.

I'm honestly at a loss how you and others could hold a position that the NCAA never had no role in this while are unable to form an opinion here??? But trying to guess what you need here is their website which includes a policies.Since I was the one that provide you the NCAA bylaws and held that discussion with you I can probably guess your reply. Other opinions were a bit more vagues. And I'd like to know if this organization is just butting in inappropriately or if things are perceived as being different? And if they are different why?

While an oversimplifying, does the Sandusky coverup reflect a failure of PSU to "define, maintain, and promote educational excellence"? Haven't the FFA threads already demonstrated that $60 million loss for NCAA, plus whatever from settling law suits can be covered by the PSU endowment?

Here you go:

An accredited institution is expected to possess or demonstrate the following

attributes or activities:

Ø a chief executive whose primary responsibility is to lead the institution

toward the achievement of its goals and with responsibility for

administration of the institution;

Ø a chief executive with the combination of academic background,

professional training, and/or other qualities appropriate to an institution

of higher education and the institution’s mission;

Ø administrative leaders with appropriate skills, degrees and training

to carry out their responsibilities and functions;

Ø qualified staffing appropriate to the goals, type, size, and complexity of

the institution;

Ø adequate information and decision-making systems to support the work

of administrative leaders;

Ø clear documentation of the lines of organization and authority; and

Ø periodic assessment of the effectiveness of administrative structures and

services.

One of the big issues was who was in charge. If as many believe, JoePa was exercising control rather than the president and AD it brings into question the leadership of the institution, the lines of authority and the effectiveness of PSU's administrative structures.

Sorry! So they are investigating whether PSU has reestablished the proper "institution controls". Other than their focus on "now" versus the NCAA's focus on the recent past, how is that different at all?

Relevant NCAA Bylaws per the NCAA.

The issue is jurisdiction. The policies for accreditation hinge on these matters. The NCAA's jurisdiction doesn't. The NCAA can say all it wants. But the scope of its jurisdiction is as follow:

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

 

[Christo]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

 

[Christo]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

Oh yeah, sure, child rape is a "basic athletics issue."

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

Oh yeah, sure, child rape is a "basic athletics issue."

The NCAA sanctioned Penn State for violating the bylaws governing child rape?I'll admit you are good at keeping one sucked in.

 

[Christo]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

Oh yeah, sure, child rape is a "basic athletics issue."

The NCAA sanctioned Penn State for violating the bylaws governing child rape?I'll admit you are good at keeping one sucked in.

Sandusky was diddling kids. They protected him. WTF does that have to do with "basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

Oh yeah, sure, child rape is a "basic athletics issue."

The NCAA sanctioned Penn State for violating the bylaws governing child rape?I'll admit you are good at keeping one sucked in.

Sandusky was diddling kids. They protected him. WTF does that have to do with "basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting"?

This question only requires creative answering when one promotes one paragraph in a 439 page document to begin and end the discussion. We both know that the NCAA found bylaws to support a claim of jurisdiction, and that their member's representatives unanimously agreed they were relevant and applicable. Re-debating that is not what I intended. So never mind. Thanks for answering at all.

 

[Christo]

Legislation governing the conduct of intercollegiate athletics programs of member institutions shall apply to basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting. Member institutions shall be obligated to apply and enforce this legislation, and the enforcement procedures of the Association shall be applied to an institution when it fails to fulfill this obligation.

Sandusky's actions do not relate to admissions, financial aid, eligibility or recruiting.

I'm willing to agree that such a statement exists and then there are lots more, but we both know that in practice it is not the end all of the NCAA jurisdiction. I don't think that there is much point to continue, but one final question if I may-Is your opinion what you interpret is the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Or, what you interpret should be the NCAA's jurisdiction?

Thanks!

I quoted it for you.

"Such as"

Oh yeah, sure, child rape is a "basic athletics issue."

The NCAA sanctioned Penn State for violating the bylaws governing child rape?I'll admit you are good at keeping one sucked in.

Sandusky was diddling kids. They protected him. WTF does that have to do with "basic athletics issues such as admissions, financial aid, eligibility and recruiting"?

This question only requires creative answering when one promotes one paragraph in a 439 page document to begin and end the discussion. We both know that the NCAA found bylaws to support a claim of jurisdiction, and that their member's representatives unanimously agreed they were relevant and applicable. Re-debating that is not what I intended. So never mind. Thanks for answering at all.

God god, read the paragraph. It's a statement of jurisdiction.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

This is like watching two blind guys in a pillow fight.

 

[tri-man 47]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

I would say yes, there is a ginormous difference. The Commission is the overarching accrediting body for PSU, which is the broader academic issue. Without academic accreditation, bye bye to federal funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, federal grants, etc.). That would be the death penalty for Penn State. I've read (and it might have been in the link as well) that it's highly unlikely they'll pull the accreditation. But the fact that they are looking is scary business.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

This is like watching two blind guys in a pillow fight.

Should I note that Christo's "Statement of [NCAA] Jurisdiction" has the heading "1.3.2 Obligations of Member Institutions"?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

I would say yes, there is a ginormous difference. The Commission is the overarching accrediting body for PSU, which is the broader academic issue. Without academic accreditation, bye bye to federal funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, federal grants, etc.). That would be the death penalty for Penn State. I've read (and it might have been in the link as well) that it's highly unlikely they'll pull the accreditation. But the fact that they are looking is scary business.

Right it is a huge threat, but my point is assuming you thought that the NCAA had no role in a criminal matter does MSCHE? If so what is the difference? Like I said last night, I get what Christo would argue.But, isn't their roles based on largely the same considerations - to protect the integrity and reputation of their members?

 

[Christo]

This is like watching two blind guys in a pillow fight.

Should I note that Christo's "Statement of [NCAA] Jurisdiction" has the heading "1.3.2 Obligations of Member Institutions"?

You're making my point for me.

 

[Christo]

So does the "Middle States Commission on Higher Education" have a role? Or, should they also just let the courts handle this? Is there really any difference between this organization reviewing the areas of their responsibilities and the NCAA?

I would say yes, there is a ginormous difference. The Commission is the overarching accrediting body for PSU, which is the broader academic issue. Without academic accreditation, bye bye to federal funding (Pell Grants, Stafford Loans, federal grants, etc.). That would be the death penalty for Penn State. I've read (and it might have been in the link as well) that it's highly unlikely they'll pull the accreditation. But the fact that they are looking is scary business.

Right it is a huge threat, but my point is assuming you thought that the NCAA had no role in a criminal matter does MSCHE? If so what is the difference? Like I said last night, I get what Christo would argue.But, isn't their roles based on largely the same considerations - to protect the integrity and reputation of their members?

 

[mquinnjr]

So NBC Philadelphia has an interview with Joe Amendola where Joe's saying that Sandusky plans to stick to the "I was set up and everyone lied" angle during sentencing. I'm not 100% sure this is going to work very well in his favor at sentencing if he goes through with it.