NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?

[J. J. in Phila]

I think at this point, J. J., we'll just have to agree to disagree. Just one more post on this subject to point out that the Freeh Report and most commentators recognize the validity of what I have posted and why the win record (the original question) was taken away from Paterno beginning in 1998 due to his lack of action to stop Sandusky after his knowledge of that report:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...senior-officials-disregarded-children-welfare

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162...-sex-abuse-scandal/?google_editors_picks=true

I can't fault anyone in the administration for not thinking this was problem when the DA, and DPW, said there was not a problem.

Sexual abuse might have been prevented if university officials had banned Sandusky from bringing children onto campus after a 1998 inquiry, the report said. Despite their knowledge of the police probe into Sandusky showering with a boy in a football locker room, Spanier, Paterno, Curley and Schultz took no action to limit his access to campus, the report said.

The knowledge that had was that this wasn't child abuse, even by the lower DPW standard. That is the problem I have with 1998 regarding the University. The e-mails don't back up any pressure on Gricar or Lauro, or any communication between them and the Big Four.

http://espn.go.com/college-football...nsequences-penn-state-devastating-many-levels

"In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity," the report states, "the most powerful leaders at the university -- Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley -- repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse."

http://espn.go.com/college-football...enabled-jerry-sandusky-lying-remaining-silent

In 2001, absolutely, but not in 1998. That is the part I'm having trouble with. In 1998, there was no cover up revealed. They sat back and the the wheels of justice turn. The Big Four knew about it, and knew that there was an investigation ongoing, but there is no evidence they tried to influence it at all. If they had, that would explain 2001.

Penn State officials were familiar with the issues of liability that could arise from Sandusky bringing minors to the Lasch Building. For example, notes maintained by Paterno reflect that Sandusky proposed several continuing connections with Penn State when he retired in 1999. Among these connections was that he would have continuing "[a]ccess to training and workout facilities." A handwritten note on this proposal reads: "Is this for personal use or 2nd Mile kids. No to 2nd Mile. Liability problems." Exhibit 2-G (Control Number JVP000027). l

That could have included injuries, like falling in the shower, or smashing your fingers in the weight room.

 

[Reader]

ON FOOTBALL: Penn State Program Far From Dead

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/wireStory/football-penn-state-program-dead-16849144

The mere suggestion that NCAA sanctions against Penn State were worse than receiving the so-called death penalty were enough to make first-year coach Bill O'Brien raise his voice a notch.

"No. We are playing football," O'Brien said forcefully during a conference call Tuesday with reporters. "We open our season on Sept. 1 in front of 108,000 strong against Ohio University. We're playing football and we're on TV. We get to practice. We get to get better as football players, and get to do it for Penn State."


More at link....

 

[Rlaub44]

I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

Bolded by me:

The Board of Trustees is meeting to discuss whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree without board authorization.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html

I don't think anything will come of this, as the only trustees that seem to be questioning this are the three newcomers that were elected by the alumni as reform candidates.

 

[Rlaub44]

I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

Thanks for posting this cityslick, because it gave me a few jumping off points.

Regarding the section I bolded, I read that too, but Ed Ray, the Oregon State president who chairs the NCAA executive committee, tells it differently:

The only potential penalty that we had some extended discussion around was suspension of play, whether that ought to be part of a basket of punitive and corrective measures. There were people who felt that was appropriate, but the overwhelming position of members of both the executive committee and the Division I board was to not include suspension of play. And therefore we moved quickly to a consideration of the actions you heard about today. And that had unanimous support from both groups.

And referring to Rodney Erickson's statement that he had to sign to avoid the DP:

I've known Rod for a long time. I didn't hear what he said. I was on a plane flying back to Oregon. But I can tell you categorically, there was never a threat made to anyone about suspension of play if the consent decree was not agreed to.

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53812/qa-ed-ray-discusses-psu-sanctions

 

[costalpilot]

I actually agree with the penalties, but I don't think the current staff or players are guilty of anything or are responsible for anything that's happened. Do you think different?

the current football players have nothing to do with it, as did the players at the time. as to the staff, I have doubts that the rumors did not make their way around the staff, but only they know.

its immaterial. the reason it happened was KING FOOTBALL. the outrage was so great that it caused even KING FOOTBALL to be attacked, by the 2A, of all people, the organization that, in some folks mind, was instrumental in creating KING FOOTBALL in the first place. but thats just a theory.

what is clear is that KING FOOTBALL allowed the outrage. that some folks knew a monster "KING FOOTBALL", was loose in the american higher educational system, and those folks believe that not much has changed, that the monster still lives.

the tail is wagging the dog.

 

[costalpilot]

Bolded by me:

The Board of Trustees is meeting to discuss whether President Erickson had the authority to sign the consent decree without board authorization.

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/breaking-news/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_state_board_of_trustees_t.html

I don't think anything will come of this, as the only trustees that seem to be questioning this are the three newcomers that were elected by the alumni as reform candidates.

what a laugh....the Paterno boys won't go down without a fight. and just imagine they wormed their way unto the board after the truth had got out, when all but the most zealous of flag bearers had at least taken cover. and their goal: an apology by the board to good ole moral joe. and a return to power of KING FOOTBALL, PATERNO STYLE.

 

[costalpilot]

I've seen some commentary yesterday by more than one lawyer who now say that a majority of these penalties are (or would be) outright illegal and Penn State would of had a very strong case of fighting it in court if they had not signed the document agreeing with them. Once they signed off on the penalties they are valid whether they were initially illegal or not.

I saw another interview with one of the Penn State presidents who also said it was a take it or suffer worse since there was talk of a multiple year death penalty on the table as well. I never agreed that they should of gotten the DP. A DP not only cripples Penn State in multiple ways, it also cripples State College which I wouldn't think is fair.

i've never heard of a member institution "fighting" an ncaa penalty in court, much less "winning one." of course I have heard a lot of chatter about the 2A's vulnerabilities in THIS matter. by folks with much to protect, who have circled the wagons at the outrageous attack by the 2A upon KING FOOTBALL. Lots of chatter. my point exactly. the 2A has threatened these folks and they are responding.

 

[wfgodot]

PENN STATE PRESIDENT SAYS 4-YEAR BAN WAS FLOATED (AP)

A spokesman for Penn State president Rodney Erickson says the university faced a potential four-year ban on playing football before the NCAA issued its punishment for how the school handled the Jerry Sandusky child molestation scandal.
---

more at the link

 

[cityslick]

PENN STATE PRESIDENT SAYS 4-YEAR BAN WAS FLOATED (AP)

more at the link

This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. I think from Penn State's point of view, especially after hearing their coach speak to various media yesterday, the two main concerns of the university was to play football and to play football on TV. These current sanctions do not prevent those two things, thus they signed off on it.

IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

 

[costalpilot]

This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. .....
IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

plz say how it is you came to know what Erickson "realizes" or fails to realize?

as to how long it will take for PSU to rebound....I'd say 10 to 15 years, depending on the choices they make along the way. And thats from now. Penn state maintains a dominant position in east coast football and i see no reason they wont respond quickly once the sanctions are removed. But if they hire the wrong coaches, it could take longer.

 

[Tipstaff]

The financial fall out for Penn State and other vendors of PS merchandise

.......from the Post-Gazette.com

Penn State sponsorship, merchandise sales slip
Mixed response to scandal a significant financial loss


By Teresa F. Lindeman / Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two years ago, fans bought $80 million worth of Penn State licensed merchandise, loading up on sweatshirts, key chains and paw print window stickers to publicly flaunt their Nittany Lions love.

This year, that number could drop below $50 million, said Matt Powell, a Scarborough, Maine-based analyst with SportsOneSource, a company that tracks the sporting goods industry.

It's not the typical response following a university athletic scandal, he said. Generally when schools get in trouble, sales of licensed gear improve as students and alums rally round. But that tends to be ..........................



Read more: http://www.post-gazette.com/stories...-merchandise-sales-slip-646197/#ixzz21jRJvFVR

 

[BigCat]

This goes along with my earlier post that they (Penn State) were in a take it or suffer worse mode. I think from Penn State's point of view, especially after hearing their coach speak to various media yesterday, the two main concerns of the university was to play football and to play football on TV. These current sanctions do not prevent those two things, thus they signed off on it.

IMO, I do think they were facing a multi-year death penalty, shutting down the football program for years. I saw Erikson's comment that they don't think these sanctions are worse than a DP and in one way he is correct, because shutting down the program would cost the university as well as the area in general millions upon millions of dollars. But he also fails to realize that these sanctions will have a lasting impact on the program. How long will it take for Penn State to reach the level of say an Ohio State or Michigan. 5 years? 10 years? Ever?

It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter

O'Brien also told the parents that he has talked to Nike about changing Penn State's plain blue and white uniforms, a staple of the program for decades under former coach Joe Paterno. He also said he's looking to put names on the back of the jerseys.

 

[costalpilot]

It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter

my bold


first without knowing anything about the psu community, it would be hard to imagine a large part of that community being energized about restoring the paterno legacy.

however there is no doubt a very active, energetic and driven group that is intent on defending the legacy regardless of the consequences. yr problem I suppose is dealing with this vocal, energized and dedicated group of true believers. i think that is what the future of your program rests on. they are yr problem.

their problem is the truth and their inability to deal with reality. the latter is their fuel.

and truth needs support to withstand these zealots.

 

[LNL]

It really depends. If a large section of the Penn State community is focused on vindicating Paterno's legacy, the program may never recover. If, however, the large majority decide to move forward, the football team could be back in the hunt for the Big 10 title 7 years from now.

Here's a good sign:


PSU's O'Brien tells parents: 'This is the key team'

http://readingeagle.com/article.aspx?id=402680#.UBCXVexdHiI.twitter

I really think O'Brien has shown good leadership through all of this. I hope it continues.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

NCAA was considering the death penalty, along with a higher fine.

http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/...ould-have.html#storylink=omni_popular#wgt=pop

 

[cityslick]

There will always be a contingent that supports JP and the 'legacy'. I would hope that a majority, especially as new students come through the university, move on and start looking toward the future. The first step in moving forward is acceptance. Once Penn State alumni and fans accept what has happened and these penalties, it'll go better for them. Some of the comments I hear now are just outright ridiculous though.

They interviewed one student after they announced the sanctions and her quote was 'JP and Penn State is getting penalized for all this stuff, how is Sandusky getting penalized?'. That's got to be one the most idiotic things I think I heard in a long time.

 

[Mama-cita]

There will always be a contingent that supports JP and the 'legacy'. I would hope that a majority, especially as new students come through the university, move on and start looking toward the future. The first step in moving forward is acceptance. Once Penn State alumni and fans accept what has happened and these penalties, it'll go better for them. Some of the comments I hear now are just outright ridiculous though.

They interviewed one student after they announced the sanctions and her quote was 'JP and Penn State is getting penalized for all this stuff, how is Sandusky getting penalized?'. That's got to be one the most idiotic things I think I heard in a long time.

I read an article that some of these students won't "get it" until they grow up, mature, have children of their own and expect coaches, teachers and bus drivers to do right for their kids. Makes
sense. Although I live in Western PA and there are still the die hards (who do have kids) who talk crazy. I always say, "If it was your son or grandson in that shower, and you knew Paterno et al could have put a stop to it, would you feel the same way?". They usually have no response for that one.

 

[Steely Dan]

I read an article that some of these students won't "get it" until they grow up, mature, have children of their own and expect coaches, teachers and bus drivers to do right for their kids. Makes
sense. Although I live in Western PA and there are still the die hards (who do have kids) who talk crazy. I always say, "If it was your son or grandson in that shower, and you knew Paterno et al could have put a stop to it, would you feel the same way?". They usually have no response for that one.

BBM

O/T But that's what really ticks me off about our country right now. A lot of people have great amounts of empathy for their families, but very little or none for strangers.

 

[Reader]

Okay, first, the Big 4 did not "seek" cover. This was reported to both DPW and the DA's Office before they knew about it.

These were there findings that the Big 4 were faced with in 1998.

DPW had three choices for findings, founded, indicated, or unfounded. "Founded" would mean that DPW thought that Sandusky abused a child. This required a lower standard than a criminal prosecution. "Indicated" means, in effect, that maybe something happened, but they really couldn't be sure. Both of these would have landed Sandusky on a child abuse list.

DPW determined that the the charge was "unfounded," beaning that nothing happened, not even a maybe answer. This finding was reached after a "psychologist," supposedly an expert, said nothing happened.

Then we move to the DA's Office. A hard charging DA, who never cut Penn State a break, looked at the case and said, no charges. In this case, Gricar was known to the Big 4, and frankly to Schreffler, and respected.

If, not being an expert in child abuse, I was faced with that, I'd reach the conclusion that nothing happened, that whatever Sandusky did, it wasn't abuse or perversion.

[And I will concede the possibility that Gricar warned Penn State that something was wrong. Even then, he didn't further investigate, nor keep an eye on Sandusky.]



2001 is different. The Big Four wouldn't look bad if they had reported 2001 and even said, **There was this thing in 2001, though Sandusky was cleared,** and given them a copy of their files. DPW and the DA's Office would have looked bad.

BBM 1 - No, that is not what I meant by 'seeking cover', I meant that the guys at PSU used the fact that no charges were filed and [incorrectly] no finding of abuse made, to NOT follow up as had been indicated even by Seasock, and as Freeh said, that the LEAST they could have done was talk to Sandusky and advise others in the football program to watch what he was doing with boys.

115 Seasock recommended that someone speak with Sandusky about what is acceptable with young children and explained, "The intent of the conversation with Mr. Sandusky is not to cast dispersion (sic) upon his actions but to help him stay out of such gray area situations in the future."

Who better to do this 'talk' than his own supervisor, Paterno? especially since the showers occurred at the workplace....I realize that Scheffler and Lauro did but when your boss tells you not do do something and is JP, I think JS would have listened a little better...he apparently paid no attention to the others and went right along with his abusive actions at the school...

BBM 2 - Very much aware of the findings terms having worked child abuse in the past. What I'm very puzzled about in this 1998 investigation is how the Chambers report was ignored, since she had the REAL professional opinion plus consulted with her colleagues, and no conflicts with working for CPS. She also DID make a report to the child line.

Why was her report kept from Lauro and why did DPW go ahead and do the
2nd evaluation with Seasock even after Karen Arnold asked them to hold off for more investigation? It seems like they got what they wanted to clear JS from Seasock and didn't want to share the Chambers report so they had an excuse to drop the charges, IMO...

Chambers made a report to the Pennsylvania child abuse line 92 and also consulted with colleagues. Her colleagues agreed that "the incidents meet all of our 42 definitions, based on experience and education, of a likely pedophile's pattern of building trust and gradual introduction of physical touch, within a context of a 'loving,' 'special' relationship."93 That afternoon Schreffler contacted John Miller, a caseworker with the Centre County Children and Youth Services ("CYS") about the allegation.94 However, there were several conflicts of interest with CYS's involvement in the case95

According to Schreffler's notes, Lauro had received copies of the boy's recorded statement, 108 yet Lauro advised the Special Investigative Counsel that he did not have full access to the facts of the case and was unaware of psychologist Chambers' evaluation.109 Lauro said that if he "had seen [Chambers'] report, I would not have stopped the investigation," which he thought at the time fell into a "gray" area and involved possible "boundary" issues.110

Schreffler had a discussion with Arnold that day as well. Arnold told Schreffler to postpone a second psychological evaluation of the boy until an additional investigation could be completed. 111 Nonetheless, a second evaluation of the boy occurred on May 8, 1998 as part of DPW's investigation. Counselor John Seasock, who had a contract to provide counseling services to CYS, conducted the evaluation.112

BBM 3 - I think you mean 1998 there instead of 2001...

 

[Reader]

Recruiting analysts: Penn State scandal will take a toll

http://articles.philly.com/2012-07-...ss-douglas-christian-hackenberg-adam-breneman

IF RECRUITING truly is the lifeblood of college football, Penn State fans may want to drop their expectations over the next decade from low to lower. For the second straight year, fallout from the Jerry Sandusky scandal at State College has sent some Penn State commitments scrambling in a different direction.

Last year it was news of the scandal itself, as well as the subsequent firing of Joe Paterno, that broke up the class of 2012. This time around it is the resulting sanctions — specifically a 4-year bowl ban and the loss of multiple scholarships over that same time period — that threaten to decimate what looked to be a promising crop of 2013 recruits.

Although some members of the next recruiting class said Monday they remain committed to Penn State, the Nittany Lions over the weekend lost Greg Webb, a four-star defensive tackle from Sicklerville, N.J., to North Carolina. Then, just minutes after Monday's announcement of the NCAA's decision, four-star cornerback Ross Douglas, from Ohio, withdrew his commitment to the Nittany Lions.


More at link....