AND the "independant" Freeh report? Court documents reveal the NCAA collaborated on that.

"Clearly the more we dig into this, the more troubling it gets," Corman told "Outside the Lines." "There clearly is a significant amount of communication between Freeh and the NCAA that goes way beyond merely providing information. I'd call it coordination ... Clearly, Freeh went way past his mandate. He was the enforcement person for the NCAA. That's what it looks like. I don't know how you can look at it any other way. It's almost like the NCAA hired him to do their enforcement investigation on Penn State."

"At a minimum, it is inappropriate. At a maximum, these were two parties working together to get an outcome that was predetermined."

Click to expand...

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...gether-penn-state-nittany-lions-investigation

The thought didn't occur to me at the time, but with hindsight, if you really care about culture change at Penn St, I think it would have been more effective for the NCAA to do nothing. That NCAA VP was right when he said Penn St. was so embarrassed they'd do anything. If the NCAA had stayed out of it, they would have had to do something on their own to demonstrate change. And it would have been difficult to do anything that would have been perceived as enough.

The NCAA stepping in and assigning a punishment changed that. The punishment coming from outside instead of from within made some of the fans circle the wagons/react defensively and it made administrators feel like they could assign a dollar value and a number of scholarships to the problem and that would be sufficient. If anything, the NCAA penalty protected the culture.

(Not to imply Penn. St.'s culture is actually worse than a lot of other places. I'm repeating myself here, but if we're going to blame the culture for putting pressure on the people that swept this under the rug/didn't take action, we'd better look beyond Penn St. Lots of fanbases put that kind of pressure on their football programs.)

Gulo Blue said:

The thought didn't occur to me at the time, but with hindsight, if you really care about culture change at Penn St, I think it would have been more effective for the NCAA to do nothing. That NCAA VP was right when he said Penn St. was so embarrassed they'd do anything. If the NCAA had stayed out of it, they would have had to do something on their own to demonstrate change. And it would have been difficult to do anything that would have been perceived as enough.

The NCAA stepping in and assigning a punishment changed that. The punishment coming from outside instead of from within made some of the fans circle the wagons/react defensively and it made administrators feel like they could assign a dollar value and a number of scholarships to the problem and that would be sufficient. If anything, the NCAA penalty protected the culture.

(Not to imply Penn. St.'s culture is actually worse than a lot of other places. I'm repeating myself here, but if we're going to blame the culture for putting pressure on the people that swept this under the rug/didn't take action, we'd better look beyond Penn St. Lots of fanbases put that kind of pressure on their football programs.)

Click to expand...

that's some peculiar reasoning there, that bad actors actually police themselves when called out for bad behavior.

human society has pretty much always had law enforcement and criminal courts for a reason, Mr. Rainbow Sunshine...

michchamp said:

that's some peculiar reasoning there, that bad actors actually police themselves when called out for bad behavior.

human society has pretty much always had law enforcement and criminal courts for a reason, Mr. Rainbow Sunshine...

Click to expand...

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not talking about bad actors, I'm talking about the culture, which is what everyone said had to be punished. The bad actors should go to jail.

But the culture? How often does an external penalty change a culture? Change comes from within. External penalties generally make people defensive. Does anybody honestly believe Penn St. fans put less emphasis on football now because of the $60 million and the bowl ban?

And then there's the administration. I don't like some of the Freakonomics stuff, but some of their stuff seems pretty reasonable. One case they talked about was parents picking their kids up late from daycare. The daycare assigned a fine for parents that picked their kids up late, but it wasn't a very high fine so they found that the number of kids getting picked up late actually went up when they enacted the fine. Once you fine something, you relieve the guilt people might have felt. Pay the fine, you've covered the cost of whatever you've done. In the case of the Penn St. admin, it's not their money or their personal guilt, it's more about PR, but the result is the same. Agree to the NCAA terms and you can say you've paid the price for what happened.

They paid $8.2 million for Freeh's 267 page report. That's over $30k per page. Not bad. Not JK Rowling numbers, but not bad for only 1 sale.

Gulo Blue said:

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm not talking about bad actors, I'm talking about the culture, which is what everyone said had to be punished. The bad actors should go to jail.

...

Click to expand...

The culture does not exist outside the people. It's not like a rock you can go throw in the ocean to get rid of.

and the bad actors... well, one is in jail, the other is dead, and the others are on trial. The stupid, stupid fans are all still there, though, and no one can do anything to change that. But the law & NCAA did everything they could and should do to change the culture.

I understand, but do not agree with, the argument that it was absurd for the NCAA to punish Penn State, because then it looks like sports trumps law. I don't agree with it for two reasons: 1.) obviously, the criminal trials were ongoing, and in teh case of Sandusky, resulted in a guilty verdict and lengthy prison sentence, which given his age was effectively a life sentence; and 2.) the NCAA has grounds to punish institutions for just about any negative conduct, or conduct detrimental to the sport in their regulations, and in this case, you could persuasively argue that Penn State's attempts to keep quiet on this for so long were an athletic issue as well as a criminal issue, since the scandal would have an obvious effect on their ability to recruit. For the NCAA to wash it's hands of the matter and leave it to the courts would've been far more egregious than the course they took.

michchamp said:

The culture does not exist outside the people. It's not like a rock you can go throw in the ocean to get rid of.

Click to expand...

I don't follow what this is supposed to mean. Culture is a distinguishing characteristic of a group of people. I'm arguing that people pointed to culture as the problem, but the NCAA fines/probation did nothing to change the culture the way people would want. The events embarrassed them. The penalties made them defiant.

and the bad actors... well, one is in jail, the other is dead, and the others are on trial. The stupid, stupid fans are all still there, though, and no one can do anything to change that. But the law & NCAA did everything they could and should do to change the culture.

Click to expand...

I was just looking at that. I'm surprised how long it takes for this stuff to go forward. 3 trials, none of them resolved yet.

There's been no culture change. I don't even know what change you're talking about. What change you think has happened? Scared administrators covering their own asses isn't culture change. The masses are defiant with regard to the NCAA. Voting in regents that will challenge the NCAA and argue the agreement to the $60M was made under duress and is invalid. They're up to 9 of 32 regents, and the 9 have all been elected in the past 3 years.

I understand, but do not agree with, the argument that it was absurd for the NCAA to punish Penn State, because then it looks like sports trumps law. I don't agree with it for two reasons: 1.) obviously, the criminal trials were ongoing, and in teh case of Sandusky, resulted in a guilty verdict and lengthy prison sentence, which given his age was effectively a life sentence; and 2.) the NCAA has grounds to punish institutions for just about any negative conduct, or conduct detrimental to the sport in their regulations, and in this case, you could persuasively argue that Penn State's attempts to keep quiet on this for so long were an athletic issue as well as a criminal issue, since the scandal would have an obvious effect on their ability to recruit. For the NCAA to wash it's hands of the matter and leave it to the courts would've been far more egregious than the course they took.

Click to expand...

I doubt we'll find new ground to cover on this. I word it a little differently of course. It's not just about how it looks. Innocent people should get punished when their teammates cheat at sports. That's fine. Innocent people shouldn't be punished for being affiliated with people that commit serious crimes.The players didn't cover up child rape. The people paying $60M didn't cover up child rape.

You're sticking to your line about them being within their rights. But the quotes up above indicate that not even the NCAA agrees with you. They knew they weren't within their rights.

Looks like the Big Ten was in on it too:

http://i.imgur.com/ZeyNQbZ.png

...taken from this:

http://media.centredaily.com/smedia/2014/11/12/10/28/VqQ5o.So.42.pdf

which is linked here

http://www.centredaily.com/2014/11/12/4453786/corman-documents-indicate-ncaa.html

Gulo Blue said:

I don't follow what this is supposed to mean. Culture is a distinguishing characteristic of a group of people. I'm arguing that people pointed to culture as the problem, but the NCAA fines/probation did nothing to change the culture the way people would want. The events embarrassed them. The penalties made them defiant.

Click to expand...

you said changing culture was the NCAA's concern; I'm saying it should not have been a concern. Who cares what Penn State's culture is? You can't force a culture on someone; you can only punish them for their crimes/violations and let them figure out how to comply.

Gulo Blue said:

I was just looking at that. I'm surprised how long it takes for this stuff to go forward. 3 trials, none of them resolved yet.

There's been no culture change. I don't even know what change you're talking about. What change you think has happened? Scared administrators covering their own asses isn't culture change. The masses are defiant with regard to the NCAA. Voting in regents that will challenge the NCAA and argue the agreement to the $60M was made under duress and is invalid. They're up to 9 of 32 regents, and the 9 have all been elected in the past 3 years.

Click to expand...

Sandusky's trial is over and done with. Criminal trials are supposed to proceed quickly, although the judge can affect that by agreeing to extensions, hearings, motions, etc. and depending on the nature of the crime, there's also certain public pressure to see trials resolved sooner than later... so I'm guessing Sandusky's trial was scheduled and no extensions/delays granted to the defense. The trials of Graham, Spanier, etc. for perjury were not as pressing, and they presumably hired experienced defense lawyers, who've managed to string these out as long as possible.

and like I said, there's no cultural change, because the students, fans, and bulk of the Penn State administration are still there; no external authority is going to change that.

Gulo Blue said:

I doubt we'll find new ground to cover on this. I word it a little differently of course. It's not just about how it looks. Innocent people should get punished when their teammates cheat at sports. That's fine. Innocent people shouldn't be punished for being affiliated with people that commit serious crimes.The players didn't cover up child rape. The people paying $60M didn't cover up child rape.

You're sticking to your line about them being within their rights. But the quotes up above indicate that not even the NCAA agrees with you. They knew they weren't within their rights.

Click to expand...

The NCAA has a blanket clause in their regs that I think covers this; I'm not sure why they believed it didn't give them the authority to punish penn state.

Just so I'm clear: you think the NCAA should have done nothing to Penn State? No vacated wins, no fines, no scholarship restrictions, nothing?

FWIW, This law student (at the time) agrees with you. There are a number of other discussions that mention the NCAA basically is stretching the scope of "institutional control" to base the punishment on a lack of that... but come on... the coaches and administration cover up, or at best turn a blind eye to Sandusky's actions on their own premises, and at worse, enable him to continue to prey on kids so as not to publicly embarass their program, negatively impact it's competitive recruiting edge, & the cash it generates... and the NCAA should have said "This has nothing to do with us?"

michchamp said:

you said changing culture was the NCAA's concern; I'm saying it should not have been a concern. Who cares what Penn State's culture is? You can't force a culture on someone; you can only punish them for their crimes/violations and let them figure out how to comply.

Click to expand...

No. I've always disagreed with the idea that the "culture has to be punished" justified the NCAA's actions. It was one of the most common arguments and I was consistently against it.

michchamp said:

Just so I'm clear: you think the NCAA should have done nothing to Penn State? No vacated wins, no fines, no scholarship restrictions, nothing?

Click to expand...

If, for some strange reason, Penn State didn't dump the guilty parties, then a show cause would be in order, but it shouldn't be needed (and wouldn't have been.) No vacated wins, no bowl ban, no fines, no scholarship reductions. Wrong venue for that stuff.

Gulo Blue said:

No. I've always disagreed with the idea that the "culture has to be punished" justified the NCAA's actions. It was one of the most common arguments and I was consistently against it.

Click to expand...

Well it wasn't MY common argument. You can't punish a culture. You can punish a program, and pen state deserved it.