The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

The NCAA didn't levy the Death Penalty.

It was worse.  Read on.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaa-hits-penn-state-football-130932180--ncaaf.html

Wow...as Boomer Esiason said, they killed the program without klling the program.

I really don't think vacating wins is worse than the death penalty. Although it puts a dent on the schools overall record, I don't think many people are going to sit back and dwell on the fact that a game they saw Penn State win is now considered a technical loss. The biggest thing (and the reason behind this I think) is that the taking away of these wins knocks Paterno out of the winnningest coach's position.

The death penalty is so severe, there is a reason it has only been handed out to one team in college football and to only five teams in history.

From a Fox report...


Other sanctions include a four-year ban on postseason games that will prevent Penn State from playing for the Big Ten title, the loss of 20 scholarships per year over four years and five years' probation. The NCAA also said that any current or incoming football players are free to immediately transfer and compete at another school.

NCAA President Mark Emmert announced the staggering sanctions at a news conference in Indianapolis. Though the NCAA stopped short of imposing the ''death penalty'' - shutting down the Nittany Lions' program completely. But the punishment is so severe, it's more like a slow-death penalty.

Losing out on 20 scholarships a year is huge outside of not playing in the bowl games. That's 25% of their scholarships. I'm glad current players can transfer although getting money right now will be difficult for the current season.

''Football will never again be placed ahead of educating, nurturing and protecting young people,'' Emmert said.

These are pretty big hits. Another thing (although not an oddicial sanction) I expect to see is very few Penn State games on TV. I expect there will be some network backlash to carrying many of their games.

I liked the ruling. It punishes those responsible for the coverup without severly effecting the players who weren't responsible. No they won't be able to play in a bowl game this year or the next 3 years if they decide to stay at Penn St. but they will be playing football for Penn St. this year which is better than not playing at all. Also I believe they don't even have to play football this year to receive their scholarship (heard that on Mike and Mike this morning so don't quote me on that). They could continue their education this year while they make plans to switch schools next year since it will be hard for most to switch now.

The scholarship losses are a bit over the top.

Money is money; PSU has already had a record fundraising year, so I'm fine with making sure that they aren't profiting off of this.  Vacating wins to tarnish Paterno's legacy is just.  I think those are appropriate punishments for conduct that did not give PSU any sort of competitive edge.

As I mentioned in a previous post, by unilaterally handing down this punishment, the NCAA president has now appointed himself commissioner of college sports.  If a college coach kills someone while drunk driving, he will no longer be able to play the "I'm not a commissioner, I can't directly punish players, coaches, or schools" card.

I agree.  The death penalty hurts your team in the present and future; declaring that wins from the past don't count is a totally different animal, and really only affects the history books.  The scholarship losses will have a much bigger impact.

My understanding was that Penn State was not eligible for the death penalty, because there is a very strict requirement: the death penalty can only be applied to a program that was already on probation when they committed a violation.

I don't believe that is correct. It was my understanding that the NCAA did look at the death penalty and said that it was on the table, but that it was determined that would hurt the players as much as the football program. They felt like the punishment they gave hurt the football program more than the players.

Wikipedia has to be taken for what it is. I actually looked up the ruling earlier today and it had a different take. Here is part of it.

However, in 1985, in response to rampant violations at several schools, the NCAA Council passed the "repeat violator" rule. The rule stipulates that if a second major violation occurs at any institution within five years of being on probation in the same sport or another sport, that institution can be barred from competing in the sport involved in the second violation for either one or two seasons. In cases of particularly egregious misconduct, a school can also be stripped of its right to vote at NCAA conventions for four years. The severity of the penalty led the media to dub it "the death penalty," and the nickname has persisted to this day.[2] However, if the NCAA finds a school has engaged in a "pattern of willful violations," it can look back to when the violations first occurred, even if they are outside the five-year window.[3] It also still has the power to ban a school from competing in a sport without any preliminaries in cases of particularly egregious violations. However, the "repeat violator" rule gave the Infractions Committees of the various NCAA divisions specific instances where they must either bar a school from competing or explain why they did not.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty_(NCAA)

I'd still shut the program down entirely for at least a year.  I don't care one bit about what it does to the future of the football team.

This is sooo much worse than the death penalty.  Losing 10 scholarships per year for 4 years, allowing players to immediately be able to transfer AND play, allowing existing players to use their scholarships (which count against the total) and not have to play, ineligible for confererence championships and bowl play for 4 years, plus probation.  It effectively has made the football program non-existent for at least six years.  The only players they will have are D2 and D3 guys.  What D1 player in their right mind would want to go and play there anytime in the next 4-5 years.  Once a team sucks for a couple years it takes quite awhile to build back up, see the Miami Dolphins. It sucks for existing seniors as it would be hard for them to transfer, also for juniors.  Any decent freshman or sophmores will most likely transfer if they have half a brain.  In listening to the news conference I got the impression that the only reason they didn't get the death penalty is that the NCAA didn't want a backlash from individuals related to game day operations losing their jobs, and the band having nowhere to play.

This was way over the top.

@Pappy "It punishes those responsible"?? Don't know what you are referring to as the four or five indivduals that had a part in this are all gone, so how exactly are they being punished by this??

The death penalty did much more than that to SMU. It doesn't even scale to the death penalty if you ask me . Losing football for a year isn't the only punishment during a death penalty (of course we only have one example within this sport to use as evidence). There are additonal losses of scholarships once the program returns, postseason bans, probation periods, etc.

Modified to add that I guess it does scale to the death penalty but that it is in now way worse. How is having something (even in a dimished form) worse than having nothing? I think that is just what people who may have advocated them getting the death penalty are saying to help justify the results they actually got.

I guess I should read up on what exactly happened since this seems like a huge penalty to what I thought only a handful of people were involved in.

I don't really know who all was let go as a part of this or what all the investigation uncovered, but I'm assuming that there was a heck of a lot more than 4 or 5 people at Penn St. that made it possible for Paterno and the others to cover this up over the last 10 years.

It punishes the program that was placed above the victims, and it punishes the university for allowing this program to dominate the purpose of the school. PSU football is not dead. PSU football has been all about JoePa and there was a lot of talk about how good they would be once he was gone as it was his legacy that brought in blue chip recruits.
This will hurt PSU football for several years, but they will come back faster than SMU did.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between some people. Most understand that it was the "program" while others see it as a few people who are already gone.

I think we all know that football/basketball etc. programs at many of the colleges dictates what gets exposed or covered up. This is just as much a warning to them as it is a punishment for Penn State getting caught.

The punishment makes some sense in that the University is going to lose millions of dollars, and yeah, I wanted the NCAA to have some balls for a change and give them the death penalty because this is far worse in my mind than athletes taking money.

The following doesn't make sense:

1.  Vacating Joe Paterno's wins AFTER Sandusky retired.

Since Jerry Sandusky's actions had little if any effect on the games being played.  I'm venturing the real reason they did it was so that he would no longer be college football's winningest coach, and I'm sure we won't be hearing his name mentioned by announcers during games anymore.

2.  Stating that you're not punishing the players who are there now and had nothing to do with this.

You took away the bowl games (rightly so) and will not allow Penn State to compete for the championship for the next 5 years.  So what are the players who are there now supposed to play for?  How the hell are they supposed to recruit anybody for AFTER the ban is lifted.  What's the new coach supposed to tell his players?  "Well let's go out there and play for the tradition of Penn State."  How long is that going to be motivational?  Five minutes?  Maybe ten?  You punished the players who are there now and will be there in the future without punishing them.

3.  You fined Penn State $60 million, roughly the amount that the program generates gross every year and you're going to set up a fund for abused children.  I actually called for or thought about calling for this in my "you're the president of Penn State" post.  But the number you (the NCAA) came up with?  Too arbitrary, and what does it do  And it includes nothing as far as an apology from the administration who allowed this to happen although I realize at least two of them are facing charges. 

This case, like most things, is all about MONEY and POWER.  Any cover up is fueled by people wanting to keep their powerful jobs, and keep the donations rolling in.  It doesn't appear that Sandusky's acts were being committed while he was coaching at PSU, so I think the harsh penalties the program received were over the top.  I would have rather seen them fine them $250K, or more.  Since the penalties will result in reduced football income, I guess the monetary penalty will in reality be much higher than the $60M.  Additionally, PSU will still be paying out huge sums in lawsuits to the victims.

Not sure where you got that from. Sandusky retired from PSU in 1999. Some of those 40 charges were for incidents that happened while he was a coach. Also, this is only from the victims that were identified for the trial. I feel it is very likely that there are more children who were never identified (his adopted son being one we know of) for trial.

Paterno's actions to cover up Sandusky started in 1998, so that was the point they chose to start vacated wins from.

Not to mention that some of Sandusky's crimes after that point were on the Penn St. campus because although Sandusky doesn't work there anymore he still has full access to the campus facilities. Paterno and the football program already know there had been allegations made against Sandusky but they continued to look the other way while Sandusky used Penn St facilities. There were multiple incidents on campus where people had reported inappropriate behavior by Sandusky and NOTHING was done to stop it. You don't see a problem with that? See a timeline of events below.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

I think my feelings on this are pretty well know.  Every person involved, be it Sandusky himself or anyone who covered it up helped cover it up or thought about covering it up, should be dragged into a public arena - slowly castrated and then made to soak in a tub full of salt water.

Here is what I don't understand:

Vacating the wins.

The team on the field won the games.  There was no competitive edge.  This isn't a story about a team full of blood doping fiends, steroid abusing linebackers or point shaving book keepers.  Nothing was done to the actual product on the field during this time. 

Maybe someone can help me understand the vacating the wins portion of this?  I'm open to it, I just don't understand where this falls into place in the grand scheme of the rest of the punishment, how it really fits.  Sure, it "sounds nice."  That's about it, so far as I can see...

^^^ It served no other purpose than to take Joe Paterno out of the record books. I don't know where the justification come in other than Paterno being shown to have the power to cover up players actions as part of the report. Maybe they justify it outside of the Sandusky actions and tie it in to other communications outlined in the report.

Well you can vacate wins all you want and for the team itself it doesn't have much meaning, but for the COACH who is the winningest of all time, taking those wins away is HUGE!!!!

Penn St has already removed the statue of Joe Paterno. The NCAA has gone one step further now and removed his name from the record books as well. It has very little to do with the team or the football program moving forward, it has EVERYTHING to do with stripping the accolades from Joe Paterno. Now you may not agree with it, but I think you can understand why they did it.

I rememebr that we received an extra win the year after I graduated because of something that wa discovered on another team. It had no meaning to me beyond joking about it. I can't see how anyone who played during that time will be affected by the "technicality" of forfeiting those victories. It's Paterno and his legacy that will suffer.

On a side note I kind of feel bad for Bowden as his name will be followed by an asterick whether real or imagined. Every time someone mentions "winningest coach of all time" people are still going to remember Paterno ... at least for Bowden's lifetime.

It is all about the legacy.  If the MLB commish had done the right thing and stripped McGwire & Bonds records, they would not be in the records book with an asterics there names would not appear at all.

It is just erasing JoePa from the books plain and simple. Same with taking down the statue, changing the name of the tent city, etc.

Covering up ABSOLUTELY gave a competitive advantage.

Had the program come clean and they had a child rape scandal on campus, you don't think that would've had some serious potential to hurt recruiting and image?  I do -- without a doubt.  If I'm a talented player and it's a toss up between two schools, I'm picking the one where the defense coordinator wasn't a pedophile rapist.  I think some of you may underestimate how much that kind of thing (even if the university purges that stuff immediately) harms a program.

It's kind of fuzzy.

In '98, when Sandusky was still an employee, I agree with you that it would have been an embarrassment.  But in '01, Paterno had a clear path to throw Sandusky under the bus without it affecting the football program:

- after the "questionable incidents" (at least, to public knowledge) in '98, PSU decided that it would be in everyone's best interest if Sandusky "retired"
- Paterno could have fully cooperated and been shocked, shocked that a former colleague was abusing his position with a children's charity to molest kids

Paterno and PSU could have walked off with "clean hands" (again, to public knowledge) and played themselves as yet another victim of Sandusky's diabolical scheming.  But for some reason, Paterno decided to keep protecting Sandusky.  There are only two reasons I can think of:

1) he didn't want to see his longtime friend go to prison, and thought that talking to him privately would stop the problem (my original guess)
2) he was scared of the '98 coverup being flipped on him (which is probably the more likely scenario)

#1 Only makes sense for Paterno, it doesn't explain PSU's reasons for doing nothing, UNLESS what Joe Paterno wants, Joe Paterno gets and that in and of itself is a problem, so even if the answer is #1, PSU still should be punished in my personal opinion.

Well, given that the number of people within PSU that knew about it was extremely limited, I wouldn't exactly classify 2001 as "PSU did nothing" as much as "a small insular group of people who all had personal ties to Sandusky did nothing."

But as I said, given that Paterno had an active role in '98, it's more likely that he was trying to keep '98 under wraps when he swept '01 under the rug.

I would not categorize it that way either. There were people who did not know who Sandusky was that did very little to nothing. A janitor witnessed misconduct in the showers two years prior to McQueary. He also told a supervisor and pointed out who the man (Sandusky) was to his supervisor in the parking lot. The supervisor was aware of Sandusky and warned the janitor to no go forward for fear of losing his job.

This goes all the way through the President, campus police, football staff, and janitors at Penn State. It cut a wide path through the university (maybe not so much in people but more so in different departments) and I'm just curious why none of them recognized the problem as a problem.

Bingo.  It is time to end the special treatment for criminal within the athletic departments on colleges AND set up programs the protect whisleblowers or you risk losing your athletic department.

When an employee fears losing his job for reporting sex crimes the CEO is at fault for having that type of work environement. 

Hoodie, in that analogy, who is the CEO?

If it's the head coach, the athletic director, or the president... well, they were all already fired.
If it's the Board of Trustees... the NCAA can't (and hasn't) done a damn thing to touch them.

So in your CEO analogy, what does eliminating scholarships correspond to?  Either the "CEO" was already fired before Penn State took action, or he is still running the joint and the NCAA can't do anything about it.

Spider, it is pretty clear that in your view of punishment -- deterance of similiar behavior is not relevent. 

This is not just about spending a message to Penn State, but all colleges. Put a system in place to prevent this.

And this punishment does affect the trustees and the alumni both of which encouraged a system that promoted covering up misdeeds if reveling them would negitively affect the football program.

So let's suppose all of this had happened 15 years ago to Notre Dame.  Who at PSU would have been deterred by the NCAA's sanctions?

The people who participated in the coverup?  If being fired and/or prosecuted doesn't deter you, sanctions won't matter much.
The people who didn't participate in the coverup?  They didn't even know what was going on.

The best case you can make for the NCAA sanctions is that they will result in coaches having less power.  Such a claim is, to put it lightly, completely unrealistic.  You think the Alabama Board of Trustees is going to start sticking their nose into Saban's everyday business because of this?  You think Duke's AD is going to assign a watchdog to Coach K?  Please.

Had these sanctions been applied to some other school 15 years ago, it would not have changed a damn thing at Penn State.  Paterno still would have been god and no one would have dared challenge him.  These sanctions are largely punishment theater, designed to placate the talking heads (the vacating of Paterno's wins is pretty much explictly so; it accomplishes nothing but removing his name from the record books).

^^That's a pretty cynical view even for you Spider. Next you'll be saying that there's no point in putting Sandusky in jail either because it won't stop any other child molestors from doing what they are going to do. Punishment isn't just a deterrent from someone else doing the same thing, it's primarily justice to those responsible for committing the acts in the first place.

And maybe just maybe some good will come of this and that 60 million dollars will be put to good use and actually give a few kids a shot at a better life than they otherwise would have. Yeah, I know that's pie in the sky thinking. It's so much easier to be cynical and assume the worst. If it's all the same to you, I'd rather error on the side of attempting to do what's right rather than putting forth the view that nothing anybody does really matters.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong.

How can the sanctions be punishment when they are not affecting ANY of the people who were actually involved in the crimes or the coverup?
How can the sanctions be a deterrent when we all know that the demigod coaches of college athletics will still be lord over their "superiors"?

Again, do you mean to tell me that this NCAA ruling means that everyone in Norman is now free to crack down on Bob Stoops?  This ruling is no sort of deterrent.  The only time any Board of Trustees will be able to rein in a demigod coach is AFTER they have committed some sort of public misconduct (see: Bobby Petrino), and after public misconduct, you don't NEED NCAA prodding to take action.  It's not like Penn State fired Paterno after these penalties were handed down.

I agree with the financial penalties, primarily because Penn State has been raising extra money off of this scandal.  And I agree with the vacating of wins, because the only thing they do is strip Paterno of his legacy.  But the scholarships and postseason penalties are just the NCAA showing off to the crowd, IMO.  The NCAA president has pointed out time and again that He Is Not A Commissioner, but for this one high-profile incident, not only does he become a commissioner, but he hands out the fastest penalty in modern history.  Quick, gotta get this scandal off of the news cycles!

edit:  I think the following question will show exactly why this is not a deterrent:

What, specifically, should the Penn State Board of Trustees have done in order to avoid falling afoul of the NCAA in the Sandusky scandal?  Please be detailed.  ("Don't allow crimes to occur" is not specific nor detailed.)

The janitors boss.  (assuming of course the punishment has the desired result of having other colleges put in proactive systems to prevent this from happening on their campus by protecting whisle blowers)

So, do you think that the head janitor in Louisville is now going to feel completely safe and secure blowing the whistle on Rick Pitino if he catches him snorting a line off of a cheerleader's ass, because the NCAA has his back?

I'll say again: what, specifically, should the Penn State Board of Trustees have done in order to avoid falling afoul of the NCAA in the Sandusky scandal?

The sanctions by the NCAA were punishment against PSU and the PSU athletic program who hired the people that were involved in the crimes and/or the coverup of those crimes and created the environment in which the crimes and/or coverup were allowed to happen. Without PSU and the PSU athletic program Jerry Sandusky and Joe Paterno are nobody.

Please understand that I'm not against coaches in charge of large powerful athletic programs, I'm against coaches in charge of large powerful athletic programs that ABUSE their power. That power is a not a right, it's a priviledge that is bestowed upon them and as such they have the moral obligation to ensure the integrity of that program. Fail to do so and you will be punished severly. Not just you the person, but the program itself.

They should have contacted the authorities to ensure that Sandusky was brought to justice and made sure that Sandusky was no longer associated with PSU in any way, shape, form or fashion. If they didn't know the abuse was taking place, then they should have taken the proper steps to ensure that they were made aware of any abuse including overseeing Joe Paterno and PSU's security staff and ensuring they were taking all the necessary steps to ensure that any abuses by anyone within the football program or anyone that was using the football programs facilities were reported to the Board of Trustees immediately.

Wrong question.  

The correct question:

Will this ruling make it more likely that some time in the next few months the Lousiville trustees will put in place a whisleblowers policy that will make the head jaintor feel perfectly safe blowing the whisle if he catches Pitino snorting a line of coke a cheeleaders ass and that the jaintor will get fired if he covers for Pitino?  

My answer: yes, it will make it more likely that other colleges will place more oversight on the sports programs.  

What are the "proper steps to ensure" that the Board of Trustees is made aware of any potential misdeeds on their campus?

Keep in mind that these misdeeds WERE reported through the proper PSU authority figures.  Those authority figures chose to cover it up (and were fired for doing so).  So should Mike McQueary (and similar low-level employees) go directly to the tippy-top with any issues of concern?  Should they be required to contact the Board directly if they notice that a coach hires a questionably qualified woman that he seems to be excessively friendly with (e.g. Petrino)?  What about if they see that an athlete has a job that pays him disproportionately well for comparatively little work?  Should any and all concerns go directly through the Board, no matter how minor?  This scandal would seem to make it clear that "I followed the chain of command" is not a defense.

Then again, maybe you're only talking about criminal activity.  So should all employees be required to go directly to the police if they witness a underage athlete drinking?  What about using drugs?

In a rational world, the fact that the people who committed the wrongdoing were immediately fired and/or prosecuted would be reasonable and sufficient.  But because of the media frenzy, the NCAA felt pressure to try to flex its muscle, by levying unprecedented sanctions that will not change the culture of worship at big-time colleges at all.

I would agree if we weren't talking about a college institution. Their whole existance is to educate, influence, motivate etc the youth of this country. That's their charter. They aren't in business to make cars or build houses or something else, they are in the business of educating the young. Instead they took advantage of kids. Granted it wasn't the kids that were enrolled in their college, but it was kids that were coming to their college and using their facilities and that probably one day hoped they would be able to go to that college or perhaps another one like it. Their first priority should have been these kids. I don't know what their priorities were, but it wasn't the kids and that is unforgiveable. It's not enough to simply throw your hands up and say "Well we thought the guy was a good guy but we were wrong" and fire him and think that fixes everything. You have a moral obligation to constantly be checking that you are doing everything you can to make sure something like this doesn't happen BEFORE it happens.

I don't know, I'm not on the board, but I know that whatever they were doing, they're going to be doing more now. That's part of the reason for the punishment, to let you know you failed and to make it clear that more is needed. Figure out what that is.

Let me give you an example. I work for the maintenance group of an airline and we are overseen by the FAA and trust me, they are damn site more picky than the NCAA is. If we let a single aircraft fly with a single bolt that has missed it's maintance schedule even if NOTHING happens, we will have millions of dollars worth of fines charged against us, we'll be asked to come up with a plan to guarantee that it doesn't happen again and we'll have to review that plan with the FAA regularly to make sure that it's working. We worry about it constantly and we have safeguards and backup safeguards in place to ensure it doesn't happen. It's not nearly enough for us to say "Well we'll fire the guy that was responsible" and that's that. And that's if NOTHING happens. If something DOES happen it will be 10 times WORSE! We are talking about the safety of the people that fly our jets afterall and that responsibility goes a LOT deeper than saying sorry. Trust me, you WANT the FAA to be that way with EVERY airline. I want the NCAA to be that way with every school.

Sometimes all it takes is a reminder of what your responsibility is for people to double their efforts in that regard. Nothing will ensure that this will never happen again, but hopefully this will be a wake up call for most of the schools at least for a little while.

But they didn't take advantage of kids!  Sandusky did!

The only offense that PSU's Board committed was letting their coach become too powerful.  And yet, all of the remaining super-powerful college coaches have just as much power today as they did 2 weeks ago.

I invite you to seriously consider the following: had all of this gone down at some other school, do you think Joe Paterno himself would have been affected IN ANY WAY by this ruling?  Do you honestly believe that if this had happened at Notre Dame 2 years ago, the PSU Board would have started investigating Paterno on their own and found this stuff out themselves?

If you believe that, then you also believe that today, there is someone in Baton Rouge saying, "You know, we should really take a hard look at what Les Miles has been up to."  I don't find that idea remotely credible.

Let me put it another way:  what would you say the odds are of a major university announcing a spontaneous self-investigation (with significant disciplinary action) against a big-name coach in the next year (without it being the result of a public incident)?  I can comfortably say those odds are non-existent.

No sir. Paterno wasn't the only one that knew what was going on. There had already been reports to the SCHOOL (not Paterno) that Sandusky had been showering with the kids WHILE HE WAS STILL AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SCHOOL. Sandusky admitted it in front of PSU employees. If you believe that the board of trustees shouldn't have been made aware of that or that they didn't find out about that, then I think you are mistaken. I don't believe there's any way they WOULDN'T have known about that without gross negligence on their part and the part of A LOT OF PEOPLE, not just Paterno.

No sir, this was not just a case of Paterno becoming too powerful, but also a case of PSU not doing due diligence in ensuring that Paterno was using that power appropriately and then removing that power from him when it became apparent that he was abusing it most likely because they were more worried about what a scandal would cost them then what it would cost the kids. That IS their responsibility. You don't just hire the man and walk away, you have to continue to oversee his duties and make sure that he's weilding the power you have given him appropriately. That IS their responsibility and they didn't live up to that responsibility. That is on THEM just as much as it's on Paterno.

That's how I see it and a lot of other folks see it as well. You are welcome to your opinion.

I've already said that deterrance is not really the main reasoning behind the punishment, so I won't argue with you on that point.

Do you know that as a fact (as in you are aware of exactly what has happened on each college campus) or is that your speculation? 

I cause I would bet dollars to donuts that at atleast some of the colleges the adminstration has began a process of greater oversight and/or implementing/enhancing whisle blower protection for employees and students who report misconduct since the scandel came to light.  I don't know if this has happened in fact, but I would bet the farm it has happened on at least one campus.   

So then, what would you say the odds are of a major university announcing a spontaneous self-investigation (with significant disciplinary action) against a big-name coach in the next year (without it being the result of a public incident)?

Annoucing one on there own?  -- Almost none.

Quietly investigating suspicians that in the past they would have ignored and then acting upon them (either publicly or privately)-- very high.

Getting tips of various misconduct that in the past would have gone unreported and then investigating them-- very high.

These are the same thing.  By "announcing," I mean "announcing the outcome" (i.e. disciplinary measures).  And I don't see any way that South Carolina is going to explain to their boosters and alumni that they are taking it upon themselves to punish Steve Spurrier for some transgression that nobody knew about.  (And if they punish him in complete privacy, how is that any different than a coverup?)

So when you say the odds are "very high," I presume that you are predicting that within the next year, at least 2 high-profile coaches will be disciplined by their universities for transgressions that nobody but the university itself knew about.  Is that a fair interpretation?

I am not claiming cover ups completely go away.  But there is a difference between acting on something sooner rather than later.

Mr. Spurrier it has come to our attention that you paid several of our cheerleaders to striptease for three players that had sacks against the NC QB.   You have until 9 am tommorow to announce your resignation 'for person reason' or at 10 am you will be fired. 

That is punishment and private.  Still a cover up - yup.  Different than doing nothing - yup.


I am not predicting any numbers.  My ONLY prediction is that UNIVERSITIES WILL TAKE THE CONDUCT AND BEHAVIOR OF THE ATHLETIC DEPARTMENT MORE SERIOUSLY.

So when Sandusky was forced into retirement in '99, that counted as doing something, right?

And my prediction is that they will only do so when misconduct is involuntarily made public.
Which is to say, there will be exactly zero impact on situations like PSU's.

You will still have look-the-other-way coverups, and if/when the coverups are exposed, future universities will act no more harshly than PSU did (firing all involved).  Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

If he was forced into retirement, yes. But then if he was forced into retirement, why was he allowed full access to the facilities after having been KNOWN to have been caught showering with a child? Why weren't his keys taken away then? And why did they continue to let his foundation continue to use the facilities and promote his foundation, unless Sandusky resigned from the foundation?

You're assuming that he was forced into retirement, but all these other things suggest that he was ALLOWED to retire under the guise that it was his idea on the basis that they would continue to coverup the fact that he was caught in the showers with a child. This is EXACTLY the reason they were fined, because they did everything they could to avoid a scandal rather then doing what they could have to protect the children from a sexual predator.