• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

NCAA To Announce Penn State Sanctions Tomorrow - No Death Penalty

Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Simon

Hall-of-Famer
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
16,376
Reaction score
20,465
Points
135
Full story here.....sanctions announced tomorrow morning:

NCAA: 'Punitive measures' await

NCAA president Mark Emmert has decided to punish Penn State with severe penalties likely to include a significant loss of scholarships and loss of multiple bowls, a source close to the decision told ESPN's Joe Schad on Sunday morning.

But Penn State will not receive the so-called "death penalty" that would have suspended the program for at least one year, the source said.

The penalties, however, are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable, the source said.

The NCAA will announce "corrective and punitive measures" for Penn State on Monday morning, it said in a statement Sunday. Emmert will reveal the sanctions at 9 a.m. ET in Indianapolis at the organization's headquarters along with Ed Ray, the chairman of the NCAA's executive committee, and Oregon State's president, the news release said.



“ The purpose of the NCAA is to keep a level playing field among schools and to make sure they use proper methods through scholarships and etcetera. This is not a case that would normally go through the process. It has nothing to do with a level playing field.


-- A former NCAA Committee on Infractions chair and current Division I Appeals Committee member who wished to remain anonymous

It is expected the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and/or the NCAA Executive Committee has granted Emmert the authority to punish through nontraditional methods, the source told Schad.

Penn State athletics has been given no indication from the NCAA about what sanctions or penalties will be levied on the department and football program Monday, a source with direct knowledge of the situation in State College told ESPN.com's Andy Katz on Sunday night. If this were a traditional infractions case, the athletic department would know up to 24 hours in advance.

The NCAA's announcement will follow a day after Penn State removed Joe Paterno's statue outside Beaver Stadium, a decision that came 10 days after the scathing report by former FBI director Louis J. Freeh found that Paterno, with three other top Penn State administrators, had concealed allegations of child sexual abuse made against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. The Freeh report concluded their motive was to shield the university and its football program from negative publicity.


The NCAA is taking unprecedented measures with the decision to penalize Penn State without the due process of a Committee on Infractions hearing.


The NCAA has a system in place in which it conducts its own investigations, issues a notice of allegations and then allows the university 90 days to respond before a hearing is scheduled.


Following the hearing, the Infractions Committee then usually takes a minimum of six weeks, but it can take upwards of a year to issue its findings.


But in the case of Penn State, the NCAA appears to be using the Freeh report -- commissioned by the school's board of trustees -- instead of its own investigation, before handing down sanctions.


"Unbelievable," said a Penn State trustee informed of the NCAA statement, speaking to ESPN.com senior writer Don Van Natta Jr. "Unbelievable, unbelievable."


Biggest Postseason Bans
Penn State is facing major punishments from the NCAA on Monday. The penalties are likely to include a significant loss of multiple bowls, a source said. Here's a list of the longest postseason bans for FBS programs since 1960. No team has ever received a five-year ban.

FBS Programs To Receive At Least
a 3-Year Postseason Ban Since 1960
School Report year Length
of ban
Indiana 1960 4 years
• Improper recruiting inducements
Oklahoma St. 1989 3 years
• Improper financial aid, extra benefits
Michigan St. 1976 3 years
• Extra benefits, improper recruiting entertainment
Houston 1966 3 years
• Extra benefits, improper recruiting entertainment
-- Source: NCAA Major Infractions Database


The Penn State trustees' hope that the statue's removal might send a positive message was trumped by the NCAA, which had already decided.

"Emmert has been given full reign by the pansy presidents (at other universities) to make his own decision," said the trustee, who spoke on condition of anonymity. "He has been given the authority to impose these unprecedented sanctions. It's horrible."

A former Committee on Infractions chairman and current Division I Appeals Committee member told ESPN.com's Andy Katz the NCAA's penalizing of an institution and program for immoral and criminal behavior also breaks new ground.


The former chair, who has been involved with the NCAA for nearly three decades, said he couldn't use his name on the record since the case could come before him and the committee he still serves on in an appeals process.



"This is unique and this kind of power has never been tested or tried," the former chair said. "It's unprecedented to have this extensive power. This has nothing to do with the purpose of the infractions process. Nevertheless, somehow (the NCAA president and executive board) have taken it on themselves to be a commissioner and to penalize a school for improper conduct."


NCAA presidents past and present have made a point of saying they are not akin to a commissioner in professional sports and don't have the power to penalize players, coaches or schools independently.


The former chair said the only "rule" that the NCAA could be holding onto here is a lack of institutional control.


"I would be surprised if they're treating this as simply a lack of institutional control under the rules," the former chair said. "Because then that would technically go through the committee."


The chair said that the NCAA is choosing to deal with a case that is outside the traditional rules or violations. He said this case does not fall within the basic fundamental purpose of NCAA regulations.


"The purpose of the NCAA is to keep a level playing field among schools and to make sure they use proper methods through scholarships and etcetera," the chair said. "This is not a case that would normally go through the process. It has nothing to do with a level playing field. It has nothing to do with whether Penn State gets advantages over other schools in recruiting or in the number of coaches or things that we normally deal with."


The former chair said as an example the NCAA didn't get involved in the murder of Yeardley Love, a women's lacrosse player at Virginia, by her former boyfriend, a male lacrosse player at Virginia.


"The real question is whether or not under the overall rules and regulations of the NCAA do those in charge take action when it doesn't fall within the scope and realm of the normal infractions process," the former chair said. "This has nothing to do with a level playing field or competition. The NCAA is a voluntary organization and the schools sign on to be bound by the NCAA rules and regulations."

The chair added that the only connection to athletics was that the department was lenient to Sandusky and that some of his crimes were committed at the Penn State football facility.


"But this has nothing to do with NCAA business," the former chair said. "This is new. If they're going to deal with situations of this kind that have nothing to do with the games of who plays and so on and rather deal with members of the athletic department who act immorally or criminally then it opens up the door to other cases."


The NCAA, the chair said, didn't get involved in punishing the school for criminal behavior.


"The criminal courts are perfectly capable of handling these situations," the former chair said. "This is a new phase and a new thing. They are getting into bad behavior that are somehow connected to those who work in the athletic department.


"This is an important precedent. And it should be taken with extreme care."


Michael Buckner, an attorney who represents schools and coaches in NCAA cases, said the NCAA's course of action might even be unconstitutional for violating federal and state notions of due process.

"Federal and state courts have consistently held that membership organizations, including athletics associations like the NCAA, are required to provide procedures that protect their members against arbitrary and irrational action," Buckner wrote in an email.

"The (criminal) conduct of Penn State and its employees, no matter how egregious, is not a violation of an existing NCAA rule," Buckner wrote.

The NCAA is not following its existing enforcement processes, according to Buckner, and the lack of an outlined appeals process is also cause for concern.

Under NCAA rules, if Penn State is hit with a postseason ban, players are allowed to transfer without sitting out a season as long as their remaining eligibility is shorter than or equal to the length of the ban. Only seniors could transfer and play immediately under a one-year ban, but a two-year ban would mean seniors and juniors could both transfer without penalty.

Josephine Potuto, a University of Nebraska constitutional law professor and former chairwoman of the NCAA infractions committee, said she hopes Emmert will announce that all current players will have the ability to transfer without penalty.

"I would be surprised if that isn't one of the things that is done," she said. "That might be one of the reasons they are calling it 'unprecedented.' There have been scholarships and bowl bans in the past that have been pretty substantial. If you allow students to transfer that would be very significant. ...

"If in the range of penalties there is not the opportunity for any player that wants to transfer, then I think it is a travesty. That is the one thing you have to do to try to at least ameliorate the situation for the athletes that are there. That needs to be done."

On Twitter, Akeel Lynch, a running back recruit who played high school football in western New York, wrote, "I still bleed blue and white," while quarterback Matt McGloin wrote, "The hotter the fire, the stronger the steel."

Tight end Garry Gilliam tweeted, "No matter what happens, I'm staying at Penn State."

Information from ESPN.com senior writers Andy Katz and Don Van Natta Jr. and The Associated Press was used in this report.

Link: Penn State Nittany Lions not facing 'death penalty' Monday by NCAA, source says - ESPN
 
The NCAA has hit Penn State with a $60 million sanction, a four-year football postseason ban and a vacation of all wins dating to 1998, the organization announced Monday morning in a news release.

"These funds must be paid into an endowment for external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university," the statement said.

The career record of former head football coach Joe Paterno will reflect these vacated records, the statement continued.

Penn State must also reduce 10 initial and 20 total scholarships each year for a four-year period, the release said.


Penn State hit with $60 million fine, 4-year bowl ban, wins dating to 1998 - ESPN
 
Good that 60 million affects all sports because the AD was heavily involved. This reached higher than football the second Spanier and Curley became involved.
 
I'm fairly satisfied with the penalties. $60 million going into an endowment for victims of such crimes was a great penalty and something a lot of us speculated might happen. Vacating wins from the Paterno era is fine punishment also, although the whole idea of vacating wins seems silly to me for any kind of punishment.

However, it seems like Penn State was given a de-facto "death penalty". I support the loss of scholarships... that is a nice reminder to not fuck around. However, the bowl bans seem silly to me. Why punish new students? With the ability for current students to transfer immediately coupled with a four year bowl ban... Penn State may as well have gotten the death penalty. The types of talent they will be able to recruit went drastically downhill. They will probably be fielding a JV club. In which case, why not just give them the death penalty? When they came back it would have been a "new era" per se... people would have had time for this whole ordeal to heal, and they could have moved on.

With the punishment they received, it seems like the worst of both worlds.
 
Looking worse than the death penalty
 
I'm fairly satisfied with the penalties. $60 million going into an endowment for victims of such crimes was a great penalty and something a lot of us speculated might happen. Vacating wins from the Paterno era is fine punishment also, although the whole idea of vacating wins seems silly to me for any kind of punishment.

However, it seems like Penn State was given a de-facto "death penalty". I support the loss of scholarships... that is a nice reminder to not fuck around. However, the bowl bans seem silly to me. Why punish new students? With the ability for current students to transfer immediately coupled with a four year bowl ban... Penn State may as well have gotten the death penalty. The types of talent they will be able to recruit went drastically downhill. They will probably be fielding a JV club. In which case, why not just give them the death penalty? When they came back it would have been a "new era" per se... people would have had time for this whole ordeal to heal, and they could have moved on.

With the punishment they received, it seems like the worst of both worlds.

The lack of scholarships and the bowl ban basically go hand in hand. Even if they didn't give them a bowl ban it was unlikely, with the reduced scholarships, they would reach a bowl anytime during the length of the penalty.

I'd rather see the University get socked with penalties than the athletic department taking the brunt of it. To be honest with you, there are a lot of innocent people who are being punished for the actions of a few. Let's not say just the football team is being punished. By the football revenue, specifically targeted, other sports at Penn St will be affected. What did women's soccer or men's lacrosse have to do with this scandal? Nothing but they undoubtedly take a hit because of it, which in my opinion is wrong. Basically what I am saying is I don't like the NCAA putting the penalties down. I think the Department of Education and the State of Pennsylvania should have imposed penalties, including heavy financial penalties, on the University and the NCAA should not have gotten involved.
 
The worst penalty is that they still have to play in the Big 10.
 
The lack of scholarships and the bowl ban basically go hand in hand. Even if they didn't give them a bowl ban it was unlikely, with the reduced scholarships, they would reach a bowl anytime during the length of the penalty.

I'd rather see the University get socked with penalties than the athletic department taking the brunt of it. To be honest with you, there are a lot of innocent people who are being punished for the actions of a few. Let's not say just the football team is being punished. By the football revenue, specifically targeted, other sports at Penn St will be affected. What did women's soccer or men's lacrosse have to do with this scandal? Nothing but they undoubtedly take a hit because of it, which in my opinion is wrong. Basically what I am saying is I don't like the NCAA putting the penalties down. I think the Department of Education and the State of Pennsylvania should have imposed penalties, including heavy financial penalties, on the University and the NCAA should not have gotten involved.

I disagree. Why should Penn State academics have to take hits when it was clearly an issue rooted in the athletics department? If Penn State were to take hits from the department of education, PSU would have had to cut funding towards academic programs completely unrelated to the athletics department. Sure, the women's soccer or men's lacrosse may lose some funding, but do you really think it would be more fair to cut funding to a business major there on academic scholarship?
 
I am not sad to see Penn State get hit hard, but its a very slippery slope that the NCAA is taking on this one. This is a non competitive advantage issue, which is always why they hit programs hard for selling simple things like their jersey. I hope this sets a new precident with the NCAA to use logic when giving out these sanctions, but I highly doubt it.

Long story short, this was done as a pure PR issue. The sanctions might be correct, but the motivation is 100% incorrect. I just cant stand the hypocracy of the NCAA.
 
I am not sad to see Penn State get hit hard, but its a very slippery slope that the NCAA is taking on this one. This is a non competitive advantage issue, which is always why they hit programs hard for selling simple things like their jersey. I hope this sets a new precident with the NCAA to use logic when giving out these sanctions, but I highly doubt it.

Long story short, this was done as a pure PR issue. The sanctions might be correct, but the motivation is 100% incorrect. I just cant stand the hypocracy of the NCAA.

Isn't it...

The administration covering up for one of the best DC's in college football in order for him to keep his job? That seems like a competitive advantage to me.
 
Isn't it...

The administration covering up for one of the best DC's in college football in order for him to keep his job? That seems like a competitive advantage to me.

Wait, really? I don't know if the reason they had a massive coverup was just so they could keep their goddam defensive coordinator. I was under the impression it was to spare the university an utterly embarrassing and criminal child molestation scandal, which they ultimately only delayed.

I mean, even the best DC ever is still just a DC.
 
As a victim of sexual abuse by a priest (many of you might know my story), I have a pretty strong opinion about all this. And it may not be what you expect...

The individuals should be punished, not the university and it's students or the church and it's patrons.

My scenario was very similar to what these victims are faced with, "None of us came out about it for years, the man was well respected and the big dogs covered it up." How do you deal with that? Who do you punish? My only answer is the individuals. But with all the laws/statue of limitations it is not easy do that, I know. Even after I came out about it (it was known), it was several years before I truly tried to do more about the punishing of the individuals who were truly responsible. I came out with a bang for a year or 2, but it was a very trying time in life, and to this day I have a bit of regret. I kind gave up the fight and even accepted a much lesser settlement than I should have got. I guess aside from being sick of it all, I knew my only options to keep up the fight would hurt the organization more than the individuals.

Sorry for the little reminiscing/release, but my main point is still: I don't agree that the institution should be punished, the individuals responsible should be...
 
Wait, really? I don't know if the reason they had a massive coverup was just so they could keep their goddam defensive coordinator. I was under the impression it was to spare the university an utterly embarrassing and criminal child molestation scandal, which they ultimately only delayed.

I mean, even the best DC ever is still just a DC.

I don't disagree with any of that.

But clearly this dude was protected for a reason.

If this were Jim Bollman or some hated coordinator they could have thrown his ass under the bus and been done with it.
 
Isn't it...

The administration covering up for one of the best DC's in college football in order for him to keep his job? That seems like a competitive advantage to me.


Not really. I know what you are saying, but its not a recruitment issue. No one has been found guilty of anything yet involved with the coverup. They went 100% on the word of the FBI investigation with zero of their own investigation and zero interviewing the offending admins.

I am not saying Penn State is right, I am just saying its a slippery slope. The NCAA has always been really bad at being judge,jurry, and executioner, but this time they did it with out really any due proccess for Penn State.

If you dont get what i am saying, then I will never make you understand that the proccess is sometimes is mroe important than the outcome. (actually most of the time) The ends dont justify the means. Everyone desrves due proccess and the ability to defend themselves. Further the NCAA has a defined role of what they administer, and this is over steppinging it.

Basically the reason they can throw the book at someone for getting free tatoos is becasue the NCAA says that the legal system doesnt matter to them, its their laws that matter. Well I challenge the NCAA to find the statute that Penn State broke. This was a matter for the legal system well before the NCAA stepped in.

That said, eh, I aint mad, Penn State deserves everything they got.
 

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-13: "Backup Bash Brothers"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:11: "Clipping Bucks."
Top