Penn State and the NCAA

One of the debates surrounding the Penn State scandals is whether the NCAA should act. On the one hand, officials would probably have to use the nebulous "lack of institutional control" clause, which I hate. It's the "gosh, we want to punish you but we have no real rule" rule. Frankly, I don't have a lot of respect for the NCAA or their grasp of the rule of law or their notion of the importance of college football. So, I'm a bit dubious. On the other hand, the NCAA has no real rule in this instance because, well, no one thought they needed to explain to member institutions that their coaches should not rape children and their administrators should not facilitate those acts.

But one thing I know on this issue. A number of pundits, including an Indiana University Law professor on NPR this morning, have said that the NCAA should not act because these crimes have little or nothing to do with football. They are simply crimes. Excuse me?

Jerry Sandusky found these children because of football. He weaseled his way into their lives through football. He raped these children in football facilities. His crimes were covered up because he was a football coach. The coverup could work because his bosses thought more highly of football than they thought of the poor children. Penn State football had much to do with these crimes.

So, that's not the question. The question, for me at any rate, is a pragmatic one. Do NCAA sanctions make sense in this instance? I'm inclined to think that some of those at Penn State truly do need some time off from football. Football, which enabled Sandusky, is not the way to bring about "healing," as some I have seen, argue. A little time away might restore some perspective. But I'm not fixed on this--I'd be curious what others think. 

Comments

[dhawhee]

I am *exactly* where you are on this--I find the time off argument pretty compelling and am open to being persuaded, but I can also see why the NCAA might say that this doesn't have anything to do with football *players* or protecting amateur status or ensuring an equal (as possible) field for recruiting, etc., the main areas that NCAA rules exist to govern.

[David Tokarz]

The "time off" argument makes me uncomfortable for a couple reasons.

It first assumes that Penn State can't handle the situation themselves. Granted, there's an easy case to be made that Penn State *can't* actually handle the situation themselves, but of the major players involved in the coverup, are any still even remotely associated to the University? And if someone else needs to take action, I'd be more inclined to say that the responsibility should fall to the trustees at Penn State or whomever supervises funding for the school at the state level (does the Penn public school system have a Chancellor?).

Second, I'm not sure that forcing Penn State to take time off from football really accomplishes anything other than collateral damage? What happens to the athletes not involved in any coverup who have committed to the program, or recruits that have committed to Penn State? Do you let them transfer without the usual NCAA penalty year? Do they get to keep their scholarships? And what about innocent staff members and coaches? They just get fired? While I get the idea that the cover-up was a program-wide issue, this isn't like a recruitment violation where the entire coaching staff is responsible and where the players on the team share in the blame.

In the end, I think there are severe implications to the NCAA applying the death penalty, and part of me wonders whether or not this is just overkill to make people feel better about their real crime: placing an undue amount of trust in Paterno et al and subsequently giving them far too much power.

Also, I really need to read the Freeh Report.

[Frank Stec]

Late comer to the comments, as I missed the return of OA in July.

I had the pleasure of teaching incoming freshmen this summer as the Freeh Report was released, we had someone tow a vaguely threatening banner over campus demanding that we take the Joe Pa statue down or 'we will,' and travelling through airports as this all occurred. All of these were interesting times and allowed for good conversation as we all attempted to come to some understanding of what it all meant and where we should go from there.

At the time, though, I saw the NCAA sanctions as mutually beneficial for both parties. As noted above and in many critiques, the NCAA was in search of some legitimacy. The same could also be said of the PSU leadership. Who would really trust them to make it right on their own terms. As David pointed out, there was enough issues with not following federally mandated protocols that one would worry that some more short cuts may be taken. Accepting the NCAA sanctions whole-hog, with a likelihood that they were partially negotiated down (we won't accept the death penalty, but bowl games cut and fewer scholarships will be fine). The $60 million fine was about the annual revenue generated by the football team, but now there are questions as to where the money will come from and what other student sports may be harmed. Alas, the small step was in the right direction. President Erickson said they accepted all the penalties and critiques and attempted to move the university forward while publicly admitting fault, as the BOT has almost no legitimacy due to their failed leadership (maybe because there are 31 of them if you included the elected officials like governor, president of university, etc).

Also, the death penalty for football would have killed this town's economy.