Rockne's Roundtable

Risk, strong logic and hard to dispute. But, I will.

The notion that innocent will suffer is inevitable in almost any NCAA probe, where the perpetrators often run away unscathed, and their successors are left to clean up the debris. If that were not the case, almost any act would go unpunished unless it could be unearthed on the spot, and justice meted out immediately. It is, to be sure, an imperfect solution, but failing that, the NCAA would be rendered impotent, even more so than some currently think.

This situation presents them with a decision worthy of Solomon. There are no precedents, nor any applicable rule nor by-law directly addressing the situation. The law will attend to various guilty parties, while the deceased will suffer a justifiably tarnished reputation. But, what of the "program"? This was the intended beneficiary of the collusion of silence, not Sandusky, and this is what the NCAA needs to address. Failure to act in this situation sets a precedent of its own, and I would maintain, it is not a good one. Proportionality will come into play, and future acts, whether by commission or omission, will have this as a reference point, and nearly everything that follows will pale in comparison.

There is sentiment going around that would lead us to believe we need our pound of flesh from Penn St. That's unfortunate, though predictable. It still becomes a question of justice, and in this instance, there are only very imperfect alternatives. People fear that, by acting in this case, the NCAA will appropriate to itself too much power to act in criminal matters. Perhaps that is a legitimate concern, but I don't think so. It's only where the program is an intended beneficiary that it should come into play. In this particular instance, it could have been one more deterrent to those who were seemingly only concerned with the welfare of the program and not countless boys (and there invariably are, in these situations) who would face a nightmarish future. Individuals were culpable, but the program reaped the benefits of silence and the avoidance of embarrassment. As such, it needs to face consequences. It was connected to the crimes of Sandusky through its facilities and its reputation which gave him stature in the community. It was not only a beneficiary but an accomplice. Millions of dollars continued to be made against this backdrop of silence. It is a both a question of balance, and a question of justice. Programs, too, must pay a price.

Ham, to destroy an elite football program and a greatly respected university, because of the crimes and alleged crimes of a few, is a disproportional response.

And, then, where do you draw the line? Who decides what level crime requires this sort of action? Go back to my murder analogy. Or what if some star player at an elite program rapes an underaged kid of either gender? We vaporize the program and raze the university?

Just because the innocent are sometimes punished with the guilty, do we then regard it is an acceptable trade-off in meting out justice? We are a country of laws, not of men, except that individual men (and women) bear the responsibility, alone, for their actions. You don't punish the Catholic Church for the legions of communicants who are regular sinners.

(Or how about the Church's own considerably larger scandal of exactly the same type? Does the Church get the Death Penalty? No, and, in that case, not only does the institution "skate," but, in most cases, the actual perpetrators and enablers! I mean, talk about precedents. Where is the commensurate moral outrage and cry for far-reaching justice there?)

It's very easy to let something like this -- a heinous act and cover up -- morph into a witch hunt. Our history is rife with this. Our City on a Hill moral predisopostions almost cry out for it. But is it equitable?

The question of equity is why this matter is best left to the courts.

Sandusky, for all of his turpitude, was not trying to advance the cause of Penn State football by molesting young boys. He was not cheating the NCAA in any way. He was committing crimes for which he has now been tried and punished. Case closed.

While Paterno and company were guilty of covering up Sandusky's crimes and, by those actions (or failures to act), compromising their offices, -- the institution, itself, cannot be held criminally liable for what occurred, although it can be sued.

Why, then, is it not enough to let the criminal and civil courts handle this matter to the full extent of the law?

These crimes and alleged crimes were committed by people connected, in some capacity, to the Penn State football program, but these crimes were not committed BY the Penn State football program, nor did they have anything DIRECTLY to do with playing football at Penn State or recruiting violations, payoffs to players or anything of that sort.

All of those actual football things are being conflated with this affair in an attempt to eradicate a stain people are just too uncomfortable looking at. They didn't want this to happen and will now go to any lengths to undo it, as though cratering Penn State will actually prevent any sexual deviant anywhere from doing his worst, or others, in high places, from covering things up.

This is just overkill, plain and simple. The carpet bombing of a university and football program when only a few surgical drone strikes are needed. I guess this is just another place we're going to have to destroy to save from itself.

So, hello, Joseph Heller.

Let's just skewer everyone at Penn State, the State of Pennsylvania, the football program, the legacy, the student body down the years, the people who love that place as much as most of us love this place or some other place, and anyone who may have known someone who had a hand in the criiminal and alleged criminal activities of four cowardly men.

Let's just blow it all up because of that. Let's just ride with Genghiz Khan.

Believe me, Ham, I see where many of you are coming from on this. I see it more clearly than you may realize. I know there's a moral grounding to your arguments, and I know you are completely sincere. I just don't see it in the same all-encompassing, absolute way and feel it would be a tragedy to destroy Penn State because of it.

Well said once again Risk.

I guess those that hope PSU's football program be shut down have no problem with the loss of jobs for individuals no way associated with Sandusky that would result from their "wishes". They have no problem screwing the 85+ kids that had nothing to do with the actions of the 4 individuals...just collateral damage.

Even though I don't agree, a well thought out and written opinion.

The problem with your point is it could be used in the USC situation as well. If PC and the players left, why punish the rest of the program? You are setting a dangerous precedent for other programs to do whatever it takes to win and then when you get caught, just get rid of those involved and start again.

I am not sure if PSU deserves the death penalty or not but the University most definitely deserves to being punished for placing the football program above all others. Sports have gotten out of hand, from parents fighting refs in little league games, to the cheating in college, to the worst CFB scandal ever.

Companies, people and sports teams have been punished for years even though the people involved moved on. A company can't go to the DOJ or SEC and say "well he no longer is with us so we shouldn't be punished" nor should PSU.

They, the entire University, was part of a horrible sin. Consequences should follow. Since football was at the heart of the sin, it should be punished as well.

Risk, in the interests of space, I won't quote your entire passage, as it will probably simply be sitting above my response. Your sentiments continue to be exquisitely expressed, and within them a level of compassion that will also probably shape some leniency in the determination of what should happen to Penn St. However, you and I remain at an impasse that I doubt we can bridge. And that is fine. As you might have seen, conflicting opinions among finer minds than ours abound on this issue.

Your corporate examples will fall under numerous headings of applicability or inapplicability as parallels to this situation. When I said corporations will be held accountable for misdeeds of individuals, that was a general principle, but not one which will apply in every instance. It is just an example that it can happen in other arenas, which means that the principle is there for the taking for argument's sake. There will be laws which clearly elicit measures which can and cannot be taken. For example, if those in Madoff's office were not guilty of any collaboration, of course they should not be punished, any more than Paterno's unwitting colleagues should be. But, if Madoff's firm had not already folded under the weight of his corruption, you can be certain that the government would have shut it down, and his employees would be out of a job. They same might happen to Penn St. employees. Is this unfair? Of course. I learned this lesson in a D.C. courtroom as a third year law student, hearing a judge quote John F. Kennedy, saying that "Life is unfair," in this instance because some young people from well-to-do families got high priced representation, while indigent clients got schlubbs like me. I am not being cavalier by saying this. It is simply a fact of the law, and a fact of life. The application of the law or relevant regulations or by-laws will, on occasion, hurt innocent people. It won't happen in every instance, but you can't use that as a bar to enforcing the law in all instances, or you render the law impotent.

Much the same is true of the other corporate examples you give. You are talking about legal prosecution. That is a matter of culpability for which there are specific legal remedies for individuals, just as there are in the Penn St. case. If those individuals were party to a crime, of course they should be prosecuted. No one is talking about that here. If they were acting unknowingly, then they should not be punished. But, if enormous fines were levied upon these entities, or any form of restriction upon the kind of business they conduct, then innocent individuals would lose their jobs. Yes, the application of the law will have collateral damage.

Now, should Barclay's be broken up? Without knowing applicable law, let us, for a moment, posit that it would be a possibility. Here we get into the rather dicey business of judicial and prosecutorial discretion. And politics. Not unlike the NCAA. I am far too cynical about all such matters to offer an opinion here, but suffice to say, the notion that life is unfair takes on an entirely different level of meaning when politics intervenes.

As for the suffering and anguish of fans, it's quite palpable to me. My next door neighbor is an alum, as are both husband and wife, two doors down on the other side. One of my favorite golf partners bleeds the colors of Penn St. He has not been to the course since the report was made public. It bothers me deeply that good people are put on the defensive for reasons far removed from the reality of their lives, and the simplicity of being a football fan. But, their pain does not tip the scales of justice. And if the shoe was on the other foot, as you suggest, how would we feel about Notre Dame? Well, I can only speak for myself, but if the NCAA brought down the hammer, I could not, in good conscience, protest. However, that point would have been rendered moot, as I would have already moved on.

Risk, I don't think you understood my point about the Church. There is no regulatory body or licensing agency allowing it to exist, other than in totalitarian societies, in a manner of speaking. That's not a technical point relieving the perpetrators of culpability -- individuals are prosecuted, but there's no one to bring the hammer down on the Church. There is no one who can revoke its charter. Nor will anyone be condemned for remaining Catholic, any more than Penn St. fans should be condemned for remaining loyal to the school. However, apologists for Paterno and clerics involved in the cover-up of abuse, may well be fair game for criticism.

The deterrence issue is hardly limited to the specifics of the case. The chances of a recurrence of this fact pattern elsewhere have to be astronomically small right now. Where deterrence comes into play is in the general principle of accountability for criminal or unethical behavior done in the interests of the program. That last phrase is the key component. Something was done for the benefit of the program. That was the motivation here. If Sandusky had been a serial payor to recruits, and it had been covered up for years by all of the same parties, most people wouldn't think twice about the hammer being brought down. We're accustomed to that mindset. Well, in this instance it is worse in every way, not only because of the nature of the acts, but because future acts were preventable. But, they weren't prevented. In the interests of the program. Yet in the first instance, punishment is not questioned, even though innocent parties would suffer, but in this we think there is a witch hunt or lynch mob mentality?

When a father is put in jail, an entire family suffers without a shred of culpability. Life is indeed unfair.

Risk, the concerns about collateral damage are honorable, but I think I've given numerous examples where they are not a consideration in the law or application of principle. In the NCAA itself, the Death Penalty has already been applied, and innocent people paid a price. The correct application of justice to the offending party, based on law, by-law or whatever, is the controlling principle. Otherwise you emasculate the law. I'm not saying what that should be in this instance, but the determination has to be based on the guidelines, and not sentiment. As I said above, families pay the price for the sins of the father.

The same is true for suffering which is occasioned by wrongdoing, but external to the law. That is a subjective element which will vary with the facts of the wrongdoing. They do not eradicate it. The notion that "haven't others suffered enough already" is not a consideration. If my friend chooses never to return to the golf course, it is his choice. Again, these matters touch the heart, but not the decision. Our hearts often go out to the families and loved ones of vile perpetrators who suffer enormous humiliation. Should they suffer even more by being denied their breadwinner? One wishes they won't, but again, those are matters which remain outside the realm of punishment for the transgressor.

Risk, the only germane argument is whether Penn St., as an entity, has any culpability in this matter. It is the only one that the NCAA can examine. If it finds culpability, and I believe it will, then the question becomes one of just punishment to the institution, or in this instance, the football program. I'm not saying what that should be, but I am saying that the factors you mention should not be the tail that wags the dog of that determination. It is not a matter of harshness vs. leniency. It is a matter of application of law or guidelines to specific acts of wrongdoing, and then a determination of the punishment that fits the crime.

Deterrence? Yes, it has questionable impact, but it cannot be ignored. There are instances where it will be a factor, and times when it will not. It still remains part of the equation. As does precedent. Of course, we don't expect this to happen again, specifically, but the precedent applies not to the specifics but to the general notion of criminal and unethical behavior done in the interests of the program. If the program is left whole by the NCAA, or only slapped mildly on the wrist, we will then have a precedent we can't put back in the bottle. What if coaches engage prostitutes for recruits and the school administration is fully aware of this and allows it to continue. It goes on for years. Finally, the law intervene, arrests are made, and offending parties lose their jobs. Once again, is the NCAA to sit on the sidelines because the law has dealt with the perpetrators? A program benefitted and because its fans are embarrassed, justice is served? Am I guilty of "severity" for saying there should be a greater price paid by a "program?" Then I will live with that designation. It's "college" football. That word modifying football should stand for something. If a "college" program wishes to exercise the privilege of playing the game, then it needs to act the part of a "college." When it ceases to do so, it should forfeit its right to participate. That's where I make my stand, Risk. It's more than a game. Much more.

Your cancer analogy is very apt. Unfortunately, I don't think you identified the actual disease, but rather the symptoms. The cancer is the attitude which permeates programs and allows Sandusky's to continue their violation of young boys because it's in the best interest of the program. It absolutely metastasized at Penn St. to a sickening degree. Facilities were still made available to the perpetrator, and he was allowed to continue to trade on his reputation as a highly respected former employee of the institution. Meanwhile, lower level employees remained silent out of fear of retribution should they bring any of this to light. That culture was the cancer. The empire of football at Penn St. was more important than the law and more important than the safety and welfare of untold numbers of young boys. The statue of Paterno remains and fans for whom we are to feel sorry, believe that he and the school have been victimized. The cancer did not leave with Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Schultz. In medicine you treat the underlying problem not the symptom.

Risk, I am now on vacation, and at the mercy of my iPad, on which I type at a snail's pace, so this will be uncharisteristically brief.

Regarding Penn St.'s guilt, it falls under he general rubric of "institutional control" and another provision regarding "ethics.". Sorry, but it's too damn hard to navigate with this iPad to track down the specifics. But no matter, that's just what they get to hang their hat on. For me, the guilt is wrapped up in the vileness of the acts which were covered up, juxtaposed to their responsibilities as an educational institution, all of which gets punctuated by the clincher -- "done in the interests of the program.". Punishments? If I was the NCAA, I'd threaten them with the Death Penalty and hope they plea bargain down to a year off, in '13. As you have gathered from above, I believe in the power of precedent, and this needs to be a good one. Now, I'm not familiar with all the remedies t the NCAA's disposal, so it's entirely possible they could cobble together a pastiche of sanctions having similar impact. But no wrist slap from me.

Risk, regarding the other question, there is no way I can address that in abridged form. It's a treatise unto itself, and would not be limited to Penn St., alone. However, they're the only one in the docket right now. I'll simply say, in Penn St.'s defense, the potential for cover-ups of criminal behavior exists in nearly every major program. The stakes and pressure have gotten enormously high. Penn St. Is far from the only football empire, though few had an emperor of the magnitude of Paterno. This is the kind of culture that breeds institutional cancer, and if you read current comments from the Penn St. community you will recognize the values that underlie the behavior of the departed quartet, still lurk very close to the surface. But, as I inferred, it is probably unfair of me to single out Penn St.

Risk, as always it's a pleasure doing business with you, though I'd prefer staying on the same side of an issue. Sparring with you has been invigorating, but challenged me to my limits, just to keep pace with you. I'll apologize in advance for not continuing this until I return, but it is too frustrating for me to have to curtail my long-windedness, and too embarrassing to admit how long it took me to type this.

Risk, fantastic job of framing issues, and when I get back to a real keyboard, hopefully Sunday, I will want to dig deep into this notion of the implications of your quote, "the fact that the underlying incidents were not of an intrinsically football nature--I would not be so worried about setting bad precedents if the NCAA chose not to punish Penn St. In the first place...". Herein lies the rub, not just about this issue, but the role of the NCAA and ultimately, the function of college athletics in universities, today. I will even push aside the Saratoga racing form to get to that one.

Got it, Ham.

Glad you're enjoying some vacation.

But, by all means, put down the iPad and relax. I do believe we have beat this horse nigh unto death. I know that it's certainly made its way through MY system.

Believe me, though, you've helped me develop additional perspective on this, and, while, there's no reconciling our differing core views, I have a much better appreciation of the issues you and others consider pivotal.

Thanks for a good tussle, but I don't expect to see back in the B & G gym anytime soon. I'm heading back to pure football posts for the foreseeable future.

We've got a training season coming up, and it should be eventful.

Cheers.

Didn't notice this last post of yours, Ham, prior to launching my own last missive, so fire away at will.

I'm interested in what you have to say, particularly, of course, the part involving where you quote what I wrote to TX.

I also owe him a reply, so I guess it's back to the B & G gym.

There was proof that Powell lied to the UN? When did that come out? Please, cite something on that, if possible, beyond mere speculation.

On a more serious note, I enjoyed reading the back-and-forth between Ham and Risksorter because of the respectable manner of their debate, the eloquence and clarity of their statements and the fact that there are good values underlying both positions. That being said, I personally fall on the side of the debate presented by Ham (where the issue is not whether the PSU football program should be punished but the severity of the punishment). And here's why.

Risksorter stated that deterrence is highly overrated, but I disagree. When a hammer is brought down, its felt. But, over time, the feeling and impression that it left starts to fade. Sometimes it takes years to fade, but that's what gradually happened with the deterrent effect of the death penalty in the SMU situtation. It's inaccurate to say that it wasn't a deterrent. It surely was. Every program woke up to the possibility that their boosters might be doing something bad and that severe consequences could be a very real possibility. But then time passed. Years. Some coaches, some programs, decided to test the waters. To see what they could get away with again. And so you have programs that started to lose "institutional control." Anyway, this is my long-winded way of saying that a deterrent, even when very strong, may lost its strength over time and must later be reinforced. Its been so many years since the death penalty was used that our institutions have gotten to a point where they no longer fear it. Maybe they should. Maybe its about time to reinforce the deterrent effect of the NCAA's biggest stick. So, that being said, in this particular instance of PSU, are the most serious punishments, including the death penalty for the football program, appropriate for the wrongdoing of those at the highest levels acting in the "best interests of their program?'

I think they would be appropriate. The wrongdoing in this case touches not only on the fact that wrongdoing was done to benefit the football program as well as the careers and images of these individuals and the university, but it was a wrongdoing that touches on the very nature of what being a college administrator, professor or any type of educator is all about. The NCAA should bring down the hammer here, not just because this relates to football. Not just because they can show how by-laws were broken in ways that improperly benefitted the football program. And not just because the wrongdoing in this instance involved the most serious types of harm to our youth. All of those are good reasons to bring the hammer down. But for me, the real reason I think the hammer should be employedinthis case is because there needs to be an example set that relates the the very nature of being an educator in our institutions of higher learning. (when I'm done typing this I'll find the quote that I'm thinking of from Dr. Emmerrt's letter to PSU that touches on this concern). People, especially every college professor, administrator, coach, etc. needs to made to seriously think about their roles in developing our young people and how everything they do can have a serious effect on that development. To me, this case is about reinforcing our expectation of everyone involved in higher education.

I also believe that if the NCAA's toughest penalty is never employed, even in the most egregious circumstances, then its a tacit admission that it really doesn't exist. That it will never be used. And any detterent effect is effectively removed altogether. One of the many serious aspects of this scenario that the NCAA must contemplate is "what happens if we don't use our big stick in this case?" Also, if the NCAA imposed the death penalty by telling PSU they can't field a team for a year or two or more, they would also be bringing back the almost outdated notion that the primary purpose of our colleges and universities is education. It 's not football. Football is not sacred. As an athletic endeavor its appropriate to be part of the education process, even though its now grown well beyond what it used to be to the point that, with football, its almost a professional business form separate from the educational mission of these schools. Maybe it would be a good idea to bring back that old notion that football is a game and that no football program, none whatsoever, supersedes the educational role of our colleges and universities and, especially, our expectations of all of the professors, coaches, administrators, etc. involved.

But to repeat myself, I respect Risk's views and am often reminded of the need for compassion and leniency - and most of the time I try to find those things in my heart. Unfortunately for PSU, if I were the decison-maker in this instance, I would probably tell myself that there is a time and place for everything, and this is the time and place for full accountability and consequences.

Thanks, Ham. I read from time to time and as the season gets closer I'll probably stop in more often.

I think this PSU case is so scary to all of us because we want to have faith in our educators - we don't want to believe that it would be possible for those entrusted with the welfare of our kids to turn a blind eye like the one (or several) turned in this case. When you look at what's at the heart of this situation, it touches on the core values and missions of our institutions. It's not just about technical recruiting violations, by-laws or some money changing hands improperly as the result of an overly enthusiastic booster. This case is really one of those unimaginable tragedies that goes to the very heart and soul of what the NCAA and our institutions of higher learning are supposed to be about.