<p>I think too much of PSU’s identity was caught up in football. It was too big. Too much money, too much television exposure, the football coach too much of an influence.</p>
<p>I understand that only “some” of the BOT, and “some” football players, and the family of the former coach want to appeal the NCAA sanctions. To me, the fact that that many groups of people still seem to view football as more important that the university decision to accept the sanctions and move on is very telling. It strikes me as the same attitude that led the admin to decide not to report child abuse to the police, CPS, the newspaper, whoever. To protect the football program.</p>
<p>You have just described “lack of institutional control.” When a coach is untouchable by the athletic director, the president, and the trustees, it means normal lines of accountability have been inverted and the coach can run amok. As JoePa did in the Sandusky case, to cover for an old loyal assistant and comrade-in-arms, and not coincidentally someone who through Second Mile played a key role to JoePa having access to as much money as he did, insofar as Second Mile recruited prominent and successful business people from all over the state to serve on its board and put them in contact with JoePa who could then recruit them as Penn State boosters and his own personal business partners.</p>
<p>This inverted power relationship is not normal at other football-crazy schools. It’s just not. Throughout Bo Schembechler’s tenure at Michigan it was clear he worked for the AD, the AD worked for the President, the President worked for the Regents, and the Regents worked for the citizens of Michigan and were accountable at the ballot box. He was respected as a football coach; he was not kowtowed to as Paterno was at Penn State, and he was not untouchable. Schembechler was every bit as big on integrity (quietly) as JoePa was (loudly and publicly), but there were normal institutional controls in place as a safeguard. That’s the difference. Sure, JoePa didn’t shape the curriculum or the capital development plan (except insofar as it affected his empire), and he probably didn’t give a hoot about the university budget apart from athletics. But within his sphere he was an absolute monarch, and as they say, power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. At the end of the day he was rotten to the core.</p>
<p>Those were his personal failings, but they were also institutional failings, and in NCAA-talk they have a name, “lack of institutional control,” the deadliest sin in the NCAA catechism. Penn State deserved every penalty it got and much more.</p>
There have a few posts with comments similar to this. Here is a difference. As far as I can remember I’ve never heard of any appeals of NCAA sanctions by parties from the school who were not responsible for dealing with the NCAA (for that matter I also do not think I can remember any responsible parties appealing either). PSU receives sanctions and at least 3 groups without standing with the NCAA decide they need to appeal Have other schools that received sanctions had players, coaches (with families), and other school officials? So what’s different at PSU that these people are compelled to interject themselves into the picture when it does not happen at other schools.</p>
<p>(PS - big time schools that have received NCAA sanctions in the last decade or so include Ohio State, Michigan, Miami, USC, and Alabama … it’s not like a big-time program receiving sanctions is unique)</p>
<p>“As of July 1, 2010, the Alumni Association counts 496,969 members within the United States, with an additional 16,180 in countries around the globe.” This is from Wikipedia.</p>
<p>NCAA sanctions are appealed all the time. In PSU’s case, part of the sanction “package” was an agreement on the current admins part to NOT appeal them. That small group of people appealing the ruling object to the process where the NCAA did not follow its own rules. And they object to the Freeh report as flawed, so they object to sanctions based on those conclusions. </p>
<p>Sanctions are supposed to be levied after the NCAA’s own investigation. Can you imagine if the Freeh report had concluded it was all solely Jerry’s fault and there was no lack of institutional control? That’s why the NCAA is supposed to do its own report. So they didn’t do that, in agreement with PSU. Now the NCAA contends appeals are not allowed BECAUSE the report was not theirs. When you shortcut your own vaunted process, some people are going to wail. (I think the appeals are stupid. Take your more-than-deserved medicine, shut up, and get on with things. Rise, and Shine)</p>
<p>The people appealing have agendas of their own creation. Many of them are fools and sycophants. If your schools are free of this kind of idiocy, let me know, and I will move there. I know none of the PSU detractors are so blind as to think that an entire University of 44K students, plus 500K alum and faculty/staff/branch students can have only one opinion on a subject. (And if they did, you’d accuse them of having a gag order and squashing free speech)</p>
<p><em>I had my PSU shirt on out of state, and only had nice responses</em></p>
<p>"That is one janitor’s viewpoint, not truth. I know faculty and staff and students, and while it is certainly true that Joe was disordinately powerful for a coach, that power was felt and real only to a few top people. "</p>
<p>Oh good grief. His power trumped the president of the university. In a world without Paterno, it is clear from the emails that Curley/Schultz had a plan that included notifying authorities, but they had to run it by Paterno, and that when he said “I don’t like that idea,” they folded and Spanier agreed in the folding. You find it acceptable that a univ president should defer to a football coach on major matters?</p>
<p>Yes greenbutton. I agree with how you are seeing the situation. The whole process was outside the box so it stands to reason that some people are unhappy with how the NCAA and the current president handled the situation. Again, the most important factor here is that typically the NCAA gets involved in situations where players are involved in activities that are not criminal but against NCAA regulations. This situation was not clear cut. First it was criminal and second it involved athletic department personnel and did not involve players or the program other than the very loose wording “lack of institutional control” which to me, is legalese for anything that doesn’t fall under normal purview. The subject of the original criminal investigation was no longer on the athletic coaching staff. Very murky waters technically and legally which is what makes this situation so interesting if you remove the emotional aspects from your observation. I, too, think the path of least resistance is to play out the sanctions and move forward but I can understand why some insiders are howling. Personally I think JoePa could have done things differently and was blinded by his misplaced loyalty, but I also think those above him were the weaker ones. The buck stops here is really very true and the buck didn’t stop with a coach…</p>
<p>“You have just described “lack of institutional control.” When a coach is untouchable by the athletic director, the president, and the trustees, it means normal lines of accountability have been inverted and the coach can run amok…”</p>
<p>^^^^^^Bclintonk hits the nail on the head once again.</p>
<p>I was working on a fairly long response to this but decided it would have no affect on anyone’s opinion. Instead I’m going to bow out of this conversation with one last observation. </p>
<p>A couple hundred pages back when Mini and others were wondering where the PSU voices were from the faculty or other community members advocating removing the statue, revoking Sandusky’s emeritus status, or self-imposing penalties there were numerous posts about PSU speaking with one voice and going through the chosen leaders of PSU. What happened to that belief now … what happened to one voice and going through PSU leaders?</p>
<p>Another way to look the two reactions are … when the minority voices are critical of PSU or PSU football they should remain quiet … however when the minority voices want to defend PSU or PSU football they should be heard.</p>
<p>We do agree the NCAA erred … we disagree about how they erred … I now believe the death penalty would have been a better sanction.</p>
<p>No, no, I think we are in agreement. The Faculty senate is supposed to be the voice of the professors, the President is supposed to be the voice of the university. </p>
<p>I’m not advocating for the appeal process, at all. I think PSU made a deal, and random people objecting is not helpful or appropriate. I only meant to point out that there are, inevitably, going to be those random people. It shouldn’t be represented that they are speaking on behalf of a whole group. (What’s up with the BOT could be an entire thread. What a bunch of whackjobs)</p>
<p>I think the people appealing are PSU at its worst: they are asking for what you describe – minority voices ignored or deferred to, depending on whether or not their opinion reflects that minority. Death penalty or not, these people appear to be demonstrating a complete lack of understanding of what “penalty” means. There is no honor in fighting the penalties, even if the process WAS flawed (and I’m not saying it was).</p>
<p>3togo…Personally I think they still have huge issues with the BOT. They SHOULD be speaking with one voice…now, people will differ on what the position that voice should be taking, but the inability of that particular organization administratively to group and speak with one voice - no matter what that voice is - shows a substantial weakness in the administration as a whole. I thought they had gotten themselves together when the president spoke at the point of the sanctions, the factulty did an interview or two…I really thought they rallied themselves organizationally. Clearly the cats still need to be herded and that’s a shame…because all this fractioning of administration does is underscore the weakness that Penn State has organizationally.</p>
<p>I can certainly understand why former football players could want to appeal. By the NCAA vacating all those Paterno wins, the players’ personal sports records have changed. All those victories - games fairly played and won - are gone.</p>
<p>Falling on deaf ears here, I know. After all - life tough, *%&^ happens, collateral damage, move on, life isn’t fair, etc.</p>
<p>Note: I think the appeals are rather stupid, but I can understand their viewpoint.</p>
<p>the buck should have stopped with Spanier, but it didn’t because he opted to be part of the coverup, for the sake of football.</p>
<p>Interestingly Erickson, as president accepted the Freeh report’s findings and recommendations, and accepted the NCAA sanctions, however, there is still a perception that others can OVERRIDE the president’s actions. This demonstrates a lack of moving forward and a lack of respect for his role and position. </p>
<p>I recognize some feel the Freeh report was lacking, but the university commissioned the investigation AND stated it would accept it’s results. You can’t then decide after the fact that if you don’t like the outcome you reneg. This is poor sportsmanship gone awry.</p>
<p>Who is paying for this law firm? The trustee or Penn State? How can Penn State allow a rogue trustee to allow these kind of actions to take place?</p>
<p>Here is a profile of the BoT member who has retained the latest crew of attorneys. It would be interesting to know how the legal fees will be handled, but I suspect there is no lack of funding from wealthy alumni for such an endeavor. </p>
<p>It’s the constant and continued defense of JoePa to this day by the Penn State faithful that corroborates the janitor’s statement. He may have been a lowly janitor but he had the sense and honesty to point out the obvious truth. </p>
<p>He pointed out the truth that the Penn State faithful reaffirm every day in their battle against the Freeh report, their sophistry and tortured justifications to attempt to undermine the evidence against Joe, their battle to prevent the football death penalty, their shock and dismay over the watered-down football sanctions they did get, their battle against removal of the statue, their undermining of Pres. Erickson over any action he takes that might weaken football, their ridiculous lawsuits against the NCAA, their attempts to reinstate JoePa’s vacated victories, and their continued worship of Paterno. Football ran and apparently still runs this university.</p>