dagblog - Comments for "Penn State deserves worse"

A couple of days out on this,

AmericanDreamer — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 14:11:00 +0000

A couple of days out on this, it seems clear enough that the saving grace of what the NCAA did, from the point of view of those whose dominant goal was that football at Penn State should continue to be played without interruption (no footballus interruptus), is that the NCAA decision permits just that to continue.

The justifying rhetoric is don't punish the innocent, who had nothing to do with this. Listening to some of the players speak yesterday, the sense I have that football is just too important at Penn State, to the point of warping perspective on other matters more important, was only reinforced.

Dad gum it, they are going to continue to play, and they are going to play harder and better, the better to bring greater glory to their beloved Penn State. How do they see that taking place? What does it mean to say that? They will play hard, they will compete hard, honorably, to the best of their ability. Isn't that what college football players across the country do? Why would anyone think the Penn State players would do otherwise?

Does their loyalty to, and pride in, their University, require that they manifest that loyalty and pride by playing NCAA-sanctioned football for it? That seems warped to me. It suggests to me that the message that a "no football at Penn State for 5 years" would be intended to serve has not been absorbed, not really. For them, continuing football at Penn State is still the most important thing, it seems.

Some who wanted no football at Penn State (I agree with those who maintain that the use of the term "death penalty" to describe such a fate further makes the point about the degree to which big-time division I college football and basketball are viewed with a lack of proportionality to their role and importance relative to other matters) for a time now wish bad things on the individual players and the team.

I can't relate to that sentiment. I don't wish them bad things at all. Truly, this isn't about them. It's about restoring something like an appropriate degree of proportionality, of perspective on the relative importance of different values and considerations for an institution of higher education, tasked with developing young people to become worthy citizens of our country. It's about the community of people for whom NCAA division I college football is the ultimate rush showing that they have the ability, the will and also the judgment about what is in the long-range best interests of all concerned, to forego that rush for a time. Can they cease use of the drug for a time, just for a time? Or does the addiction continue to exert its control over them?

It is precisely because of the intensity of that rush that foregoing it for a time is the ultimate, but also perhaps the only clear, signal that the community of people who are passionate about big-time college football truly "get it" here, on this matter.

Again, no football for 5 years at Penn State does not mean that innocent athletes cannot play sanctioned NCAA division I college football. They can transfer, and without having to sit out a year. It does not mean they cannot attend their beloved Penn State and benefit from their experience there in untold other ways. They can do that. The connection between Penn State and its football program just got way out of whack, however, with tragic consequences. Or does their devotion to Penn State in the end require their playing for a Penn State that plays division I football? If so, what sort of a devotion is that?

Allowing football to continue at Penn State does nothing to try to reconstitute the connection, the relationship, between Penn State and its football program to a healthier state. It is that connection which needs to be severed for a time, with a clean break, and reconstituted in due time, with, hopefully, a chastened and healthy sense of proportion. Not only at Penn State, but perhaps for other collegiate athletic programs and the people who run them who are prompted, and able, to reflect.

does sending a serial killer

Elusive Trope — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 06:09:09 +0000

In reply to And then we get the paranoid

does sending a serial killer to a life sentence stop serial killing? no. so let's not give them life sentences because serial killers will do as serial killers will do. as a society, one takes a stand and makes a statement. The NCAA has limited powers (and it has not been perfect in my opinion, and the whole big time money with football and basketball is a whole issue in and of itself), but it attempted to do what it could within it powers when confronted with what is an unprecedented event.

We are not talking about punishing an individual who chooses the wrong path. This is an institutional and community issue - exactly like the Catholic Church - where the system put the organization ahead of exposing and punishing a pedophile.Before this scandal, who would have thought any individuals in any football program would have looked the other way.

Will the punishment handed down stop pedophiles? No. But maybe it make board of trustees be just a little more vigilant, coaches a tad more williling to ask questions, college town police forces a little more willing to investigate.

No one will ever know what was going through Paterno's mind (and soul). But if you think that if a university in 1997 went through this and he would have made exactly the same decisions as this, you're basically an idiot.

That's like telling homicide

Elusive Trope — Thu, 26 Jul 2012 05:48:29 +0000

In reply to They didn't do anything to

That's like telling homicide detectives and DAs by stepping in to punisher murderers, "well, hey, you didn't stop them from killing those people." Sorry to tell you, but sometimes, we have to come in after the fact. But in your enlightened state, tell me what the NCAA could have done prior to this that would have ensured Paterno (or the administrators) done the right thing.

Yes, child abuse happens all

ocean-kat — Wed, 25 Jul 2012 06:51:07 +0000

In reply to I just find the whole thing a

Yes, child abuse happens all the time. Institutions are never going to deal with it no matter how severe the penalties on the rare institutions that get caught. People are going to have to solve this problem and the first absolutely necessary step is to talk to children about sex. If parents don't talk to their children about sex until its a comfortable completely normal discussion children won't talk to their parents about sex. They learn pretty quick its a taboo subject that's not supposed to be talked about. When children are taught that they're not supposed to talk about sex it makes it kinda hard for the kid to tell someone if they get sexually abused. And sex education in schools, yes, for 1st graders. Lots of it until talking about sex is no different than talking about how to add and subtract or spell words.

Then hope that there's a parent or responsible adult that cares enough to do something when the child does talk.

Somehow I think pulling down

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:25:59 +0000

In reply to The main issue is "what the

Somehow I think pulling down Paterno's statue did more to drive the point home than any of this strongarm action.

And 5 years of no football at

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 18:11:49 +0000

In reply to The main issue is "what the

And 5 years of no football at Penn State will turn everyone into responsible, grand appreciators of human rights? Wasn't PSU already unusual as the college where athletes actually studied and got good grades?

How many people at Penn State covered something up, vs. how many who had no idea this was going on? Even the President objected that the Freeh Report misplayed how much info he had on the matter, and since there's no followup hearings, we don't really know who's right.

But is this punishment actually a remedy for any brewing cases elsewhere - whether pederasty or other infringements? Or just makes people feel good that someone's doing something.

The main issue is "what the

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 15:13:25 +0000

In reply to Yes, an offer PSU couldn't

The main issue is "what the hell is the penalty trying to accomplish?"

Well, as I wrote, I would have preferred 5 years of no football at Penn State. Better yet if Emmert had conducted a press conference in which his first words were something like:

"Much as we, the NCAA, share the passion for collegiate athletics felt by millions of college students, college officials, and fans throughout our country, some things are more important than the pursuit of victory on the playing fields. Some individuals at Penn State forgot that. What they did, and what they did not do, cannot stand insofar as this body is concerned."

That would have communicated a message notable for coming from the NCAA itself. The intended message--intended messages are often not the messages received--would have been directed to anyone running a collegiate athletic program, including a big-money one: You're a human being first. Don't ever forget that. Or you may have your ability to pursue your passion taken away from you.

Doing it that way--leading with a direct statement that cut to the core of the issue--would have enhanced the credibility of the NCAA in my eyes, I know that. They could have moved on from there (as they still might) to consider sensible reforms they might make to try to restore a greater sense of proportionality to big-time college football and basketball.

I agree that vacating the wins was silly.

I thought this one was well

AmericanDreamer — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:31:16 +0000

In reply to This one that was linked to

I thought this one was well over the top. It's clear enough that the author despises both the NCAA and the sports pundits. Well, ok. I get that. But none of that is relevant to assessing what the NCAA did in this case.

I'll pull out what seem to me the four key paragraphs in toto, to try to avoid taking these comments out of context:

The NCAA Division One Manual and Bylaws is incredibly long, convoluted and poorly written. The one unmistakable takeaway from a review of it, though, is that it was designed for regulation of student athletes and the sanctioned competition they engage in. It is not a regulatory, nor enforcement, scheme designed to deal with criminal acts and morality, whether direct or tangential. In fact, the word “criminal” appears on exactly one out of the 426 pages of the manual (see: Manual, p. 393), and that is, somewhat hilariously, only in relation to defense and indemnification of NCAA employees – the masters and overlords – who might get called to testify or participate in civil and/or criminal proceedings. That is the full extent of the contemplated jurisdiction of the NCAA in relation to overt criminal acts, whether they be acts of commission or omission, both of which were present in the Sandusky/PSU set of facts.

So, what is the actual original intent of the NCAA? It has been stated, and restated, over the years, but this, from the NCAA itself, is pretty much as good a synopsis as there is of the designed intent and jurisdiction:

"The original 1906 constitution of the NCAA (IAAUS at that time) reflected a desire of the first delegates (primarily college professors) to regulate college athletics and ensure that athletic contests reflect the “dignity and high purpose of education” (Falla, p.21). During the early years of the NCAA, this was carried out by assuming a role as the chief rulesmaking body for many sports, promoting ethical sporting behavior, suggesting that athletic departments be recognized as units of instruction within each university, and debating issues such as amateurism and eligibility for competition. Many of these functions and issues are still foci for the NCAA. However, the organization’s role has expanded substantially over the years to include administration of national championships, education and outreach initiatives, marketing, licensing and promotion, communications and public affairs, membership/legislative services, and rules enforcement."

An admirable set of goals indeed, but it does not contemplate regulation of felonious criminal behavior, even if it is tangential to a major college sports program. And, unsurprisingly, never – at least until today – has the NCAA sought to insert itself into such weighty concerns of society as a whole, as opposed to conduct in and around the “student-athlete” relationship to member universities and “competition” among them. Not until today, not until Mark Emmert arrogated upon himself the authority. But that is what unitary executives do, isn’t it? They arrogate power and abrogate due process.

The NCAA was not "contemplating the regulation of felonious criminal behavior." It has no authority to, nor did it seek to, mete out criminal penalties. By its actions it is communicating that if you are going to run an athletic program there are certain implied minimal expectations, and that in this case Penn State did not meet them, under any reasonable interpretation of what those should be.

There would have to be a very conservative--as in very cautious and limited--implied definition of what is unacceptable conduct by a university's athletic program, meriting sanctions, precisely because...such conduct is implied. It is not spelled out in the NCAA rules. And so if the NCAA is going to do what it did, it had better be very careful, and mindful of the precedent it is setting. I'm not worried that it overreached here.

The author notes that the NCAA has assumed a role of "promoting ethical sporting behavior". Likewise, it is noted that the initial delegates 1906 delegates wanted the NCAA constitution to reflect their desire that it ensure athletic contests reflect the dignity and high purpose of education.

Well. I am not struggling much to believe that the inactions of senior Penn State officials thoroughly sullied the dignity and high purpose of education at that university by calling into question the priorities and core values and commitments of the people running the institution.

And in re to promoting ethical sporting behavior, in what sense can "ethical sporting behavior" occur when senior officials of an institution with a mission to nurture and develop young people choose to ignore and cover up circumstances strongly suggesting hideous and devastating abuse of minor children on its premises? Is it too much of a reach, and a dangerous slippery slope at that, to conclude that an extremely modest implicit precondition for "promoting ethical sporting behavior" is that you're not covering up sexual abuse of a minor that you've been made aware of? What might the evil NCAA--often seen as a toothless paper tiger unwilling to take strong enough measures to police its operations--do next?

Yes, an offer PSU couldn't

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:29:30 +0000

In reply to At the press conference,

Yes, an offer PSU couldn't refuse. No, it wasn't nuclear in the sense it didn't blow up Pennsylvania, or even the whole school, which are kinda out of the scope of college sports. It just more or less killed Penn State's sports program for a few years, even though not quite as much as saying no playing at all. "The good news is you still get to play for a shit neutered program for the next 4 years. The bad news...."

Taking away Penn State's wins for the last umpteen years? Mindless and stupid. If Joe Paterno was found to be a brutal wife beater for all those years, would the NCAA make the same call? Should all the players - you know, the students at the school - be penalized because some of the coaches & supervisors went off the rails - outside the program? And does someone at Notre Dame care that the bowl game they lost was just magically given to them? I suppose Pete Rose's opponents should have been magically given back baseball games and stolen bases after he got caught gambling.

The main issue is "what the hell is the penalty trying to accomplish?" If someone can explain that, maybe I can re-evaluate whether it's a good thing. But it just seems like a too-late pile-on by the organization that never dabbles too closely in running an ethical system.

At the press conference,

artappraiser — Tue, 24 Jul 2012 14:24:18 +0000

In reply to Identified what role if any

At the press conference, Emmert was asked why there wouldn’t be a hearing: there wouldn’t, he said, because Penn State had agreed to everything.

Read the rest--Davidson also makes a strong case that the response doesn't exactly reach the "slightly-below-nuclear" level. Not unless you're the kind that thinks football is the major reason that universities exist, that is. (The fine, for example, is equal to one year's gross revenue for the football program, and she covers the other major points.)