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

[J. J. in Phila]

The use of ineligible players due to academic fraud is a clear example of an athletic program gaining a competitive advantage due to a traditional NCAA violation. I don't think the two cases are comparable, other than the fact that the violation wasn't committed by either coach.

Both were violations of the NCAA's rules, as previously noted.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.

Yes, Spanier should probably have alerted the board to the police report, but in thinking more about it, it becomes entwined with the DPW investigation, which is a confidential matter and may not be shared with others unless the matter is adjudicated and is classified as founded. If the employee were truly innocent, the law is written to protect that person from repercussions of a false allegation. In this case, it protected a guilty person, but that is not the fault of PSU, and certainly did not provide enough competitive advantage to the football program to warrant a forfeiture of all of their wins for that 4-year period. Again, IMO.

Well, that is a matter of judgment on if it should have gone to the BoT. The NCAA can judge the circumstances, and did. Now, you can disagree with their judgment, and I actually would on that aspect, but not their right to make it.

What DPW did is subject to confidentiality. What happened, however, was not. That employment matter, could have been brought to the BoT.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Respectfully snipped.

The employee was also a faculty member in the Department of Physical Education, and at the time of the incident, he was not acting in either capacity, but as a representative of the Second Mile organization.

So, if a professor punched a student outside of class, in a hallway, that wouldn't be subject of proper discipline? The department head or dean, shouldn't become involved, even though it happened on PSU property? Do you expect any of us to buy that?

 

[Rlaub44]

Respectfully snipped.



So, if a professor punched a student outside of class, in a hallway, that wouldn't be subject of proper discipline? The department head or dean, shouldn't become involved, even though it happened on PSU property? Do you expect any of us to buy that?

In line with the thread title, and in response to your post, my comments were regarding the incident providing sufficient reason for the NCAA sanctions, not regarding discipline by the University if appropriate. Please don't confuse the issues, as they are separate.

 

[Rlaub44]

Well, that is a matter of judgment on if it should have gone to the BoT. The NCAA can judge the circumstances, and did. Now, you can disagree with their judgment, and I actually would on that aspect, but not their right to make it.

What DPW did is subject to confidentiality. What happened, however, was not. That employment matter, could have been brought to the BoT.

It isn't so clear-cut. What happened was the subject of said DPW investigation, and the University officials had no independent knowledge of Sandusky's actions other than what Schultz was told by Harmon. LE and DPW were investigating jointly, and it is easy to understand that the administrators might not have known what information if any they were allowed to share.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

In line with the thread title, and in response to your post, my comments were regarding the incident providing sufficient reason for the NCAA sanctions, not regarding discipline by the University if appropriate. Please don't confuse the issues, as they are separate.

You are the one that brought the "representative" issue up. A school employee's, as Sandusky was in 1998, conduct within the facility is obviously subject to the school's administrative control. If Sandusky would take a day off, come into the office, and do something improper, just because he wasn't on the clock would not prevent the school from regulating that.

That is the crux of the administrative control issue.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

It isn't so clear-cut. What happened was the subject of said DPW investigation, and the University officials had no independent knowledge of Sandusky's actions other than what Schultz was told by Harmon. LE and DPW were investigating jointly, and it is easy to understand that the administrators might not have known what information if any they were allowed to share.

Schultz and Harmon are University officials.

Now you can make the argument (in a logical sense of an argument) that, in 1998, PSU relied on the experts, based on the information in the Freeh Report. Now, unless and until there is more information on the issue, you can make the the argument the "experts" didn't find anything.

You can just as well, make the argument that PSU, internally, should have taken some investigative steps, like talking to Sandusky.

Personally, I would buy the first argument, but I also realize the second argument is there. The NCAA is free to make the judgment that they should have done the second.

 

[nittanylioness234]

PSU should have done the second, even if there was no finding of a "crime." There should have been a corrective action, that Sandusky was not to bring children to PSU showers alone. At the very least. I would go further, and say he should not bring children, alone, to ANY PSU facility. And if that wasn't a university wide rule at the time, they could have made one.

 

[Rlaub44]

You are the one that brought the "representative" issue up. A school employee's, as Sandusky was in 1998, conduct within the facility is obviously subject to the school's administrative control. If Sandusky would take a day off, come into the office, and do something improper, just because he wasn't on the clock would not prevent the school from regulating that.

That is the crux of the administrative control issue.

The reason I mentioned which capacity he was acting in at the time of the abuse was because we were discussing the NCAA vacating the football team's wins from 1998 onward, based on the University's response to the 1998 report.

His actions, disgusting as they were, were not conducted as a football coach. He was a Second Mile mentor, in his official capacity with a Second Mile youth, who happened to have access to Lasch Building because he also happened to be a member of the PSU football staff. If he hadn't taken the boy there, they could have showered together at White Building, IM Building, or Rec Hall.

The "institutional control" aspect would come into play if Penn State officials failed to keep the football program in check in 1998. That has never been suggested by anyone, with the possible exception of your hints that you have inside information about additional contacts with LE. Freeh admitted that the University cooperated fully with the 1998 investigation, and there was no evidence that they attempted to influence the outcome, a feeling that was echoed by Schreffler. And while Sandusky's actions off-duty would absolutely be subject to discipline through the University system, at the conclusion of the investigation, there was no determination that he had broken any laws or any University policies. Again, hindsight makes it seem obvious that they should have restricted his access at that time, but at that time it was a misunderstanding that had been handled by LE and DPW and was behind them, as I believe Schultz commented.

And to return to your earlier comparison with Bobby Bowden and FSU, think of the purpose of vacating those Seminole wins. The team played and won those games with players who were ineligible due to academic fraud. Since the players were not eligible to play, vacating those wins is an appropriate consequence, since the team gained a unfair competitive advantage by using those players.

Penn State's wins from 1998-2001 were played within the rules of athletic competition, with legally fielded teams, and nothing gave them an unfair advantage just because Spanier didn't update the trustees on Sandusky's investigation and subsequent clearance. Vacating those victories is arbitrary and capricious, and it diminishes the relevance of that sanction.

 

[Rlaub44]

Schultz and Harmon are University officials.

Now you can make the argument (in a logical sense of an argument) that, in 1998, PSU relied on the experts, based on the information in the Freeh Report. Now, unless and until there is more information on the issue, you can make the the argument the "experts" didn't find anything.

You can just as well, make the argument that PSU, internally, should have taken some investigative steps, like talking to Sandusky.

Personally, I would buy the first argument, but I also realize the second argument is there. The NCAA is free to make the judgment that they should have done the second.

The NCAA is free to do whatever they choose - that much is obvious. My argument is just that vacating the wins from 98-01, while within the power of the NCAA, is in my opinion, illogical grandstanding and piling on with a sanction that, again in my opinion, doesn't fit the facts in the matter.

That's why I would never argue that the Corbett or Paterno lawsuits had any chance to succeed. The NCAA has broad latitude to choose how to deal with their member schools; but that doesn't mean they are immune from overreaching, which is what I think they did here.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

The NCAA is free to do whatever they choose - that much is obvious. My argument is just that vacating the wins from 98-01, while within the power of the NCAA, is in my opinion, illogical grandstanding and piling on with a sanction that, again in my opinion, doesn't fit the facts in the matter.

That's why I would never argue that the Corbett or Paterno lawsuits had any chance to succeed. The NCAA has broad latitude to choose how to deal with their member schools; but that doesn't mean they are immune from overreaching, which is what I think they did here.

Well, based on what Freeh has reported publicly, I'll agree that a reasonable outcome included was not vacating the 1998-2000 wins. However, that is a judgment call. There is logic and reasonableness is saying, in effect, "PSU, you should have, as employers, investigated this incident, since it was serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation." I would not call it, "illogical grandstanding and piling on." I may have found differently, but it was reasonable.

 

[Rlaub44]

Well, based on what Freeh has reported publicly, I'll agree that a reasonable outcome included was not vacating the 1998-2000 wins. However, that is a judgment call. There is logic and reasonableness is saying, in effect, "PSU, you should have, as employers, investigated this incident, since it was serious enough to trigger a criminal investigation." I would not call it, "illogical grandstanding and piling on." I may have found differently, but it was reasonable.

Being that vacating wins is typically used in situations where the violation affected competition (eligibility, recruiting, booster payments), what is your opinion of using that sanction in addressing what the NCAA thinks PSU should have done in 1998?

In my earlier post about FSU, it is easy to connect the consequence to the violation, as they games that were violated were not played under the NCAA rules of competition.

I recognize that the NCAA is limited in how to penalize PSU for 1998, but nothing the University did in responding to the police investigation that year gave them unfair advantage on the field for the next four years.

 

[Twindad]

Without the combination of PSU and TSM, I don't think JS would have ever been able to commit the amount of crimes he did. Without the allure of being the coach, he could have never lured all those children away nor had the community so willingly turned a blind eye.
The sanctions against PSU will be soon forgotten by most and it will return to business as usual. Vacating the wins doesn't change anything but the page in the record book.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Being that vacating wins is typically used in situations where the violation affected competition (eligibility, recruiting, booster payments), what is your opinion of using that sanction in addressing what the NCAA thinks PSU should have done in 1998?

In my earlier post about FSU, it is easy to connect the consequence to the violation, as they games that were violated were not played under the NCAA rules of competition.

I recognize that the NCAA is limited in how to penalize PSU for 1998, but nothing the University did in responding to the police investigation that year gave them unfair advantage on the field for the next four years.

The unfair advantage test is not required for sanctions. In that case, 1998-2000, it could be lack of administrative control. It also could be the "exemplar clause," that personnel in the athletic department have a standard higher that of an average citizen.

 

[Rlaub44]

The unfair advantage test is not required for sanctions. In that case, 1998-2000, it could be lack of administrative control. It also could be the "exemplar clause," that personnel in the athletic department have a standard higher that of an average citizen.

I understand - I was asking what you thought about using the particular sanction of vacating victories.

In the past, it has been what behavioral scientists refer to as a "logical consequence", because it follows logically that if you used unfair advantages to win a game, you should have that win taken away from you.

This time it was used as a punishment. The sanctions already included remedial measures to correct the institutional control issues, such as the Athletic Integrity Monitor, following all of the recommendations for change from the Freeh Report, and more, so I have trouble seeing how taking victories from the 1998-2001 teams and their late coach fits with the perceived "failings" in 1998.

 

[J. J. in Phila]

I understand - I was asking what you thought about using the particular sanction of vacating victories.

In the past, it has been what behavioral scientists refer to as a "logical consequence", because it follows logically that if you used unfair advantages to win a game, you should have that win taken away from you.

This time it was used as a punishment. The sanctions already included remedial measures to correct the institutional control issues, such as the Athletic Integrity Monitor, following all of the recommendations for change from the Freeh Report, and more, so I have trouble seeing how taking victories from the 1998-2001 teams and their late coach fits with the perceived "failings" in 1998.

First, it is not about the players, and may not be about the coach.

Yes, as a means of enforcing institutional control, it is reasonable. It serves as a deterrent to future PSU administrators, and to those in other schools. Even to other coaches, who may say, **I don't want my victories vacated like Paterno or Bowden. I'm going to march into the AD's or president's office and make sure they are handling it properly.**

 

[J. J. in Phila]

Without the combination of PSU and TSM, I don't think JS would have ever been able to commit the amount of crimes he did. Without the allure of being the coach, he could have never lured all those children away nor had the community so willingly turned a blind eye.
The sanctions against PSU will be soon forgotten by most and it will return to business as usual. Vacating the wins doesn't change anything but the page in the record book.

I think that is a key point. It will only change the school's and coach's records, not the players.

 

[Reader]

You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.

Do we know that the BOT could have rebutted Freeh's report? Is there a copy of their contract? Maybe by terms of the contract they agreed to accept his findings whatever they were?

 

[J. J. in Phila]

You are correct, Reader, and the unfortunate truth is that by accepting the Freeh Report without rebuttal or correction, the Board accepted by default all of the things Freeh identified as failings, some which were inaccurate, IMO. That opened the door for the NCAA to use those accepted failings in setting the sanctions.

I think that something should be clear here. When Freeh reported, he did so for information. The BoT neither accepted, rejected, or took any action, on the report and none was required.

 

[nittanylioness234]

Do we know that the BOT could have rebutted Freeh's report? Is there a copy of their contract? Maybe by terms of the contract they agreed to accept his findings whatever they were?

Copy of engagement agreement, which does not mention any restriction of rebuttal:

http://progress.psu.edu/assets/content/FreehSporkinSullivanEngagementLetter.pdf