Did NCAA Overstep its Authority?

[DodgerHawki]

One could argue that..

Show me where they gained a competitive advantage from this case. They knew what was going on, but it is a criminal matter, not a competitive one which is what the bylaws are meant to protect. Joe Pa was protecting one of his own and trying to not humiliate Sandusky and protect his own reputation at the same time. One could argue that had they done the right thing it would have reinforced his aura of always doing the right thing, instead he chose the wrong thing and now this has happened. Now if they started investigating more and found out that the coverups went even deeper, and involved players getting preferential treatments, being let off on speeding tickets and such, then they would have a case for competitive advantage.

Now I'm not a lawyer, but I do have friends who are and we discuss random cases sometimes. The law is never as black and white as it may seem, and in order to come to a rational decision you must always look at both sides of case to prepare your arguments and defenses.

That all being said, I'm glad the NCAA decided to do something and not at all surprised PSU accepted their decision. If the rumors about Paterno and how he was basically in charge there are true, I wouldn't be surprised if there were more coverups involving players and such that DID violate rules. The people now in charge knew this and knew that there would be far more things come out if they did not accept the terms.

by not going public with Sandusky's proclivities, PSU gained a competitive advantage by bolstering its reputation as a place where the football team followed "Winning With Honor." At the time when Sandusky retired and then in 2001, PSU was in the midst of its worst stretch of football at PSU. It's not hard to imagine that if the 2001 incident is reported, that pressure is put to bear on JoePa to retire, and the public sentiment would be to remove him (he's too old, PSU is not winning, etc.)
Penn State's whole brand/image was as a place where winning was done the right way, they follow the rules, etc. There would have been some short-term pain had the powers that be at PSU turned Sandusky in, but it would have ultimately benefited the school by showing it was willing to suffer short-term loss for adhering to its mission.

 

[DwayneTwill]

No.

Penn State did overstep its authority, though.

 

[OO44]

Mark Emmert is not the Commisioner of the NFL. What this does is expose the NCAA as a business and they could now lose an anti-trust case lawsuit.

I am not defending JoePa or Penn State. But this could come back to haunt the NCAA.

 

[David79]

Mark Emmert is not the Commisioner of the NFL. What this does is expose the NCAA as a business and they could now lose an anti-trust case lawsuit.

I am not defending JoePa or Penn State. But this could come back to haunt the NCAA.

That may be why the allowed Emmert to act on his own without the normal process. They wanted to have a scape goat if it came back to bite them.

 

[treychase]

I've been saying all along that I didn't think the NCAA would be able to do anything because the bylaws are too vague or non-existent in a case like this. This is not something that anyone writing the bylaws would have ever expected to happen so it was never addressed. I have a feeling that PSU is in full damage control mode and that they figured it was better to just STFU and accept any punishment handed down to prevent any further embarrassment in public. They could fight it and would probably be able to create a good defense against the sanctions, but at what cost in the public eye?

Non functioning compliance dept.
That's what the ncaa is using to do this.
Not the actual rapes.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

 

[SirJamaLot]

no, PennState should consider themselves lucky the Big Ten didnt kick them out

 

[Koolaid]

A little off topic from the OP but I keep hearing this is not just a football issue but a University issue - yet the sanctions only allow football players to leave the program and play elsewhere without sitting out a year.

I wonder if we will be hearing shortly from athletes in other sports at PSU that want out and don't want to have to wait a year.

 

[Scorpio79]

*duplicate post*

Punishment is for:
Enabling a serial child rapist for possibly two decades or longer; dozens of victims.
Complete failure to report incidents of child rape in athletic facilities/on campus.
Knowing/willing concealment the above incidents by university "leaders".
Creation and cultivation of an environment in which football (revenue) was primary focus, and child safety and academics were ignored.
Total loss of/lack of institutional control of the football program.

They deserved every punishment handed down, and more imo.

 

[JonDMiller]

Let's pretend they were threatened with death penalty if they didn't agree to the sanctions put forth...

I disagree with your logic because Penn State wasn't 100% certain that they would win an appeal. So they thought it was smarter for them to take these sanctions, not risk losing an appeal and getting the death penalty, and not risk the incredibly terrible press that would be brought down on the school with an appeal.

Again, I agree that the NCAA had jurisdiction. Just don't agree with the logic in the OP.

if they were not 100% certain they would win appeal, that means they had doubts as to whether or not NCAA could do what they did in the form of them overstepping their boundaries

 

[DwayneTwill]

Mark Emmert is not the Commisioner of the NFL. What this does is expose the NCAA as a business and they could now lose an anti-trust case lawsuit.

I am not defending JoePa or Penn State. But this could come back to haunt the NCAA.

Not this.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Show me where they gained a competitive advantage from this case. They knew what was going on, but it is a criminal matter, not a competitive one which is what the bylaws are meant to protect. Joe Pa was protecting one of his own and trying to not humiliate Sandusky and protect his own reputation at the same time. One could argue that had they done the right thing it would have reinforced his aura of always doing the right thing, instead he chose the wrong thing and now this has happened. Now if they started investigating more and found out that the coverups went even deeper, and involved players getting preferential treatments, being let off on speeding tickets and such, then they would have a case for competitive advantage.

I don't really think that's much different than what they're being (rightly so, IMO) punished for.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I am reading a lot of national talking heads and others saying the NCAA overstepped its authority with its sanctions of Penn State.

Don't know that I go along with that.

Penn State signed a consent of decree, saying they accepted the NCAA's punishment. While PSU may have done this to avoid the Death Penalty, or the threat of it, it still comes down to a simple premise:

if you believe the NCAA was operating outside of its jurisdiction, the threat of the Death Penalty for the aspects related to the PSU situation would be empty, would they not?

You can't on the one hand say you feel the NCAA was out over its ski tips and in the next breath say that you accepted what would be an implied illegitimate set of punishments to avoid harsher punishments from an agency you don't believe had the power to do what it did.

Which in the end means you really do believe the NCAA had the authority to do what it did, which renders the debate of whether or not the NCAA actually had the authority to do what it did, moot.

Here are the questions I have (NOT saying I disagree with PSU being punished):

--There appeared to be no "usual" NCAA investigation/hearings/process. Emmert sort of said the Freeh Report and Sandusky trials served in that capacity. Personally, ALL schools better watch out if the NCAA will now call meetings of councils and let "outside" investigations take place. Follow-up question to this would be, what did the Freeh Report or the Sandusky trial have to do with NCAA rules? And will this now extend to NCAA stepping in and telling schools they can't take certain players, or making players ineligible based on police blotters?

--Effectively, they have given PSU the "death penalty". I will NOT be surprised if, in two years, Trustees, alums, big donors, et. al., get together and say, "What's the point? Why spend this kind of money on a program that we KNOW won't be competitive? What, exactoly, are we 'building' during this four years? Let's just shut this down until "X" date. And what can the NCAA do THEN? Take PSU to court and "force" them to field a football team? Good luck.

--They effectively gave certain schools a competitive advantage because the PSU players and commits that DO go elsewhere is a de facto awarding of additional scholarships. If ALL PSU players transferred (assuming that's 85), you are "potentially" dividing 85 players between 119 schools. So, at a minimum, 34 schools will be short-changed. But we can pretty much figure several schools will get MORE than one player. Thus, "aggressive" and "less principled" schools win. Way to go, NCAA!

--As several local Orlando radio folks said, Emmert sat by and watched the BCS deal, which is hardly "across-the-board" equitable. He sits by to watch some conferences decimated by ACC/SEC "raids". Not in the rules, you say? I still have yet to se exactly which NCAA rules PSU broke (despicable, though, their actions were). One can argue that not "revealing" back to 1998 might have changed some recruits' minds. Except Sandusky was gone after 1999. They are manipulating events and rules to fit where they want them to fit.

--Vacating of wins was nothing more than taking Paterno "down". Would the "committee" or Emmert have had the stones to do this if Paterno were still alive?

All in all, though, SOMETHING had to happen. And whatever came down was not going to be satisfactory to everyone. So..it is what it is.

 

[DwayneTwill]

Here are the questions I have (NOT saying I disagree with PSU being punished):

--There appeared to be no "usual" NCAA investigation/hearings/process. Emmert sort of said the Freeh Report and Sandusky trials served in that capacity. Personally, ALL schools better watch out if the NCAA will now call meetings of councils and let "outside" investigations take place. Follow-up question to this would be, what did the Freeh Report or the Sandusky trial have to do with NCAA rules? And will this now extend to NCAA stepping in and telling schools they can't take certain players, or making players ineligible based on police blotters?

The Freeh report was commissioned by PSU themselves. This isn't some outside group putting this together. Penn State had the report done for them and apparently accepted its findings as truth. I think it's fair.

--Effectively, they have given PSU the "death penalty". I will NOT be surprised if, in two years, Trustees, alums, big donors, et. al., get together and say, "What's the point? Why spend this kind of money on a program that we KNOW won't be competitive? What, exactoly, are we 'building' during this four years? Let's just shut this down until "X" date. And what can the NCAA do THEN? Take PSU to court and "force" them to field a football team? Good luck.

That's not going to happen. No way. No how.

--They effectively gave certain schools a competitive advantage because the PSU players and commits that DO go elsewhere is a de facto awarding of additional scholarships. If ALL PSU players transferred (assuming that's 85), you are "potentially" dividing 85 players between 119 schools. So, at a minimum, 34 schools will be short-changed. But we can pretty much figure several schools will get MORE than one player. Thus, "aggressive" and "less principled" schools win. Way to go, NCAA!

Allowing players to transfer is fair, and keeps them from being unduly 'punished'. Obviously other schools will pick up most of the players who'll leave, but they all have the same chance as they do with any other recruit. No one's being 'short changed'. The big boys will probably have better luck landing the better players, but that's no different than any other 4-5-star player who's still in high school.

--As several local Orlando radio folks said, Emmert sat by and watched the BCS deal, which is hardly "across-the-board" equitable. He sits by to watch some conferences decimated by ACC/SEC "raids". Not in the rules, you say? I still have yet to se exactly which NCAA rules PSU broke (despicable, though, their actions were). One can argue that not "revealing" back to 1998 might have changed some recruits' minds. Except Sandusky was gone after 1999. They are manipulating events and rules to fit where they want them to fit.

I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The BCS deal and the pedo-scandal are completely unrelated.

--Vacating of wins was nothing more than taking Paterno "down". Would the "committee" or Emmert have had the stones to do this if Paterno were still alive?

I think they would have the stones to vacate Paterno's wins if he were still alive, and I think they would have forced PSU to fire Paterno had they not already done so.

 

[tm3308]

The NCAA isn't some external body like the FBI or the Department of Motor Vehicles. It is composed of its member institutions-- and Penn State is one of those. So they can pretty much do whatever their member institutions agree to. That's why Penn State's agreement is relevant here.

Sure, Penn State would have been well within their right to object. But given their current position, that would have been an incredibly stupid thing to do, PR wise. And they are fully aware of that fact, which makes their agreement a lot less relevant. Even if they thought it wasn't the NCAA's job, there is no way they would dare contest it in this climate.

 

[CAARHawk]

Again, PSU didn't object because they needed this. The football program, which includes the boosters, had run amok. The PSU leadership was powerless on their own to real this thing in. The NCAA provided them with the ammunition they needed.

 

[hawkfan33]

I am reading a lot of national talking heads and others saying the NCAA overstepped its authority with its sanctions of Penn State.

Don't know that I go along with that.

Penn State signed a consent of decree, saying they accepted the NCAA's punishment. While PSU may have done this to avoid the Death Penalty, or the threat of it, it still comes down to a simple premise:

if you believe the NCAA was operating outside of its jurisdiction, the threat of the Death Penalty for the aspects related to the PSU situation would be empty, would they not?

You can't on the one hand say you feel the NCAA was out over its ski tips and in the next breath say that you accepted what would be an implied illegitimate set of punishments to avoid harsher punishments from an agency you don't believe had the power to do what it did.

Which in the end means you really do believe the NCAA had the authority to do what it did, which renders the debate of whether or not the NCAA actually had the authority to do what it did, moot.

Sure you can. You think Penn St really wants to drag this out for years in court? They want to put this behind them, even if it means taking an excessive penalty. Having this in court and in the papers for years and years would not have benefitted Penn St in any way.

The NCAA set a dangerous precedent here.

 

[olivecourt]

The NCAA set a dangerous precedent here.

What exactly is the precedent that they're setting, and why is it dangerous?

 

[Sparky]

Non functioning compliance dept.
That's what the ncaa is using to do this.
Not the actual rapes.

Why is this so difficult for people to understand?

Lack of common sense.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

The Freeh report was commissioned by PSU themselves. This isn't some outside group putting this together. Penn State had the report done for them and apparently accepted its findings as truth. I think it's fair.



That's not going to happen. No way. No how.



Allowing players to transfer is fair, and keeps them from being unduly 'punished'. Obviously other schools will pick up most of the players who'll leave, but they all have the same chance as they do with any other recruit. No one's being 'short changed'. The big boys will probably have better luck landing the better players, but that's no different than any other 4-5-star player who's still in high school.



I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The BCS deal and the pedo-scandal are completely unrelated.



I think they would have the stones to vacate Paterno's wins if he were still alive, and I think they would have forced PSU to fire Paterno had they not already done so.

The Freeh Report, as I mentioned, had nothing to do with the NCAA. It doesn't matter who commissioned it.

<<No way. No how.>>

That's been said about a lot of things.

<<I don't know what point you are trying to make here>>
If myou read, ,you would know I wasn't the one making the point. I was merely mentioning that several folks think the NCAA jumps in when it wants. The Sandusky case wasn't about competitive advantage, nor about anything NCAA-related.

They MIGHT have had the stones. But agin, if you believe the NCAA would have "forced" them to fire Paterno (or anyone else), then you are saying it would be okay for the NCAA to overstep its bounds. The NCAA would be overstepping, unless, through due process, they could "prove" a heck of a lot more than what has been definitively proven thus far.

 

[hawkfan33]

What exactly is the precedent that they're setting, and why is it dangerous?

That they no longer need to follow the established process, that the NCAA doesn't need to do their own investigation, that they have the authority to punish schools without clear rule violations.

When yahoosports comes out with their next big expose on some football program, the NCAA should be ready to issue sanctions within a week then. They no longer have to wait to find evidence on their own. Remember when they couldn't do anything to Cam Newton because they supposedly couldn't find a rule his father broke by asking for money? Well that no longer matters, they can just go ahead and declare him ineligible.