<p>^^ the entire concept of “vacating wins” is rather silly. The guys played and they won…the only place that those wins won’t appear is in the annals of the NCAA. For all his flaws as a human the coach won alot of games and you cannot pretend those wins never happened.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Please read the sanctions … the lost money can not be taken out of other sports.</p>
<p>Hunt–I’m curious, if the failure to report charges in your view are not clear cut legally, can they be charged for their failure to intervene at all, failure to prevent future instances of sexual abuse on their own campus, by not even following their own agreed to plan?</p>
<p>In other words, they agreed to talk with Sandusky and if he was COOPERATIVE, they wouldn’t report him. But since Sandusky’s outright denial, he told Curley, “it didn’t happen” can hardly be construed as coooperative, they then didn’t follow their own recognized plan to report, or to put restraints in place on campus to prevent further abuse incidents at Penn State.</p>
<p>I know in my work managing crises in workplaces, our legal counsel always indicates that what you state (especially in writing) as your own necessary course of action needs to then actually be followed otherwise you are liable for any bad outcome. So if we know an employee has threatened another and we plan to terminate or discipline, and then we don’t and there’s an actual assault, we have liability because we recognized the need to intervene, set up a plan to do so, but then didn’t follow through on said plan.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>that is being covered by the amount of bowl game proceeds they normally get each year. Alums will not need to rush to fill that for them.</p>
<p>Please. How do you “take away” a win? Those coaches and players were there, they celebrated, felt the satisfaction, made the bowl trips, and earned bonuses and awards. The only thing the NCAA is doing at this point in time is changing a number in a history book.</p>
<p>Everyone has acknowledged that university officials’ failure to act regarding Sandusky’s actions stemmed from a desire to protect the Penn State football program from scandal. This failure to act did benefit the football program for many years, so the NCAA is justified in addressing that unfair (and unethical and immoral) benefit Paterno and those “above” him conferred upon the program.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I disagree. Ithink that they would have been out of touch, and in charge had they not agreed to sanctions and decided to fight them. The fact that they signed/ agreed to this without a fight shows the first bit of acceptance of their wrong doing that I had previously seen. IMO…</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Part of the requirement was that no other sports program suffer or have to pay for the monetary fine. And they did not want academic departments to have that burden either. But the academic part was an after thought during the press conference.</p>
<p>
No, it says that money used to pay the fine cannot be taken out of other sports. If, on the other hand, athletic department revenues fall for other reasons (such as a loss of football revenues due to lack of bowl games or other issues), there is nothing saying that they cannot discontinue other less-profitable sports for this reason.</p>
<p>Ex: Let’s say that the revenues from the athletic department are down $20 million including the $12 million annual share of the fine. The department can trim $8 million wherever it wants, as that money is not related to the fine. If they feel the best way to keep everything going is to cut $8 million in other athletic programs, then they can do so.</p>
<p>I’m a fan of the rule of law, even when we’re talking about the law of a nongovernmental body like the NCAA. My recollection is that the rules state that the death penalty can only be meted out when there is a re-offense after a previous NCAA sanction. If that’s what the rule is, it ought to be applied, and there shouldn’t be a death penalty here, even if it is richly deserved. Then the NCAA should go forward and change the rule, so that the death penalty can be applied in a first offense when the football program is involved in a criminal coverup or equivalent moral violation.</p>
<p>
There is generally no criminal liability for failing to intervene in somebody else’s crime–unless the law creates a special duty, like the duty to report we are talking about here. If you think your neighbor is molesting children–even if you see him doing it–you generally have no legal obligation to report it or to do anything about it.</p>
<p>As I think about this more, I’m wondering about civil liability, too–it may be hard to impose civil liability on PSU for people who were only abused off-campus. I’m not sure what PSU’s duty to them would have been. It’s different for those who were on PSU property when abused–they are invitees.</p>
<p>Hunt, I thought that a number of children were guests of PSU at bowl games in hotels when abused.</p>
<p>Sandusky’s position as a Penn State assistant coach also gave him access to those children, whose parents/guardians trusted Sandusky because of his position with the University.</p>
<p>
On one hand, individuals are not legally bound to report crimes unless they are specifically required to by virtue of their special position, and in such cases the usual penalties lie in the form of fines and prohibition from such positions in the future. On the other hand, the prosecution could quite probably make a strong case for aiding in the commission of a crime - they provided means and resources for him for several assaults. There is a difference between turning the other way and letting some commit the crime with your resources, and aiding in the consummation of a serious felony is a felony in its own right in PA.</p>
<p>Penn State (per their President) has accepted the NCAA sanctions.</p>
<p>I think it’s a smart decision on PSU’s part. An appeal would ensure that the story stayed at the top of the news for weeks or months. With the NCAA part of the case closed, the bad press will slow down pretty soon.</p>
<p>^^^ does that surprise anyone?^^^</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an appropriate time to note that the Freeh investigation failed to interview a number of important witnesses, some of whom are un-named. I’m wondering if those names are discoverable by Shultz and Curley’s defense.</p>
<p>fwiw – Jesse Palmer just said on ESPN that it’s more likely that underclassmen will bolt than upperclassmen. If nothing else, it takes a while to learn the system/plays of a team. Had nothing but praise for O’Brien as a skilled coach. </p>
<p>ETA. 3 recruits have just decommitted in light of the NCAA sanctions per ESPN.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’d bet money you’re wrong. They would face Title IX sanctions if they cut a bunch of female sports like you have stated…</p>
<p>The other silly thing about vacating wins is that they are vacating Paterno’s wins but not the wins when Sandusky was on the coaching staff. It’s done, it’s over but darn silly if you ask me.</p>
<p>They are vacating the wins after 1998, the time that there is proof that everyone knew about the situation.</p>