Mandel: “Shouldn’t Emmert Step-in [at UN*], too?”

With the unprecedented punishment levied against Penn State yesterday, Stewart Mandel says that NCAA “displinary czar” Mark Emmert “overstepped” and then touches on a question many of us are asking about the ever-inconsistent NCAA (SI.com):

“While there’s been much speculation about whether this fits this specific bylaw or that specific bylaw,” said Emmert, “it certainly hits the fundamental values of what athletics are supposed to be doing in the context of higher education.”

No argument there. Perhaps this truly is a turning point in the history of the NCAA. Perhaps this is the beginning of a new era where Batman Emmert flies in and saves the day every time the forces of athletic evil make a mockery of academic virtues.

He’d better. Otherwise, this will instead prove to be a crowning moment in NCAA hypocrisy.

Remember when most college football fans assumed Auburn and/or Cam Newton would endure some sort of penalty when the quarterback’s father openly solicited six figures from Mississippi State? The NCAA couldn’t do anything, Emmert insisted, because there was no rule on the books addressing that specific scenario. We’d best not hear that excuse again.

Remember the 2003 murder of Baylor basketball player Patrick Dennehy by a former player, and head coach Dave Bliss’ subsequent attempt to falsely portray Dennehy as a drug dealer to cover up for illegal tuition payments he’d made? Would Emmert (who was not yet with the NCAA at the time) step in if that indisputably heinous case arose today? If not, why? What’s the threshold in determining whether something is special-jurisdiction-caliber repulsive or leave-it-to-the-enforcement-department-level disturbing?

And have you read about the ongoing academic fraud scandal at North Carolina? Since at least 1999, athletes have repeatedly been steered toward a specific professor’s African and Afro-American Studies course that no one actually taught or attended. Last year’s NCAA investigation only scratched the surface. Considering how highly the NCAA portends to value academics, shouldn’t Emmert step in here, too?

“We don’t see this opening a Pandora’s box at all,” said Emmert. “This was a very distinct and very unique set of circumstances.”

That’s easy to say now. Nothing in the history of NCAA scandals has come close to the level of allowing a serial pedophile free reign to a school’s football facility, and basic faith in humanity make us inclined to believe that it will never happen again.

About StateFans

'StateFansNation' is the shared profile used by any/all of the dozen or so authors that contribute to the blog. You may not always agree with us, but you will have little doubt about where we stand on most issues. Please follow us on Twitter and FaceBook

UNC Scandal

54 Responses to Mandel: “Shouldn’t Emmert Step-in [at UN*], too?”

  1. Pack Mentality 07/24/2012 at 9:06 PM #

    ^ I actually disagree with your assessment. And PSU’s report disagrees with your assessment in that it does not leave any doubt that he knew.

    Nonetheless, even if you were correct in what did he know, he’s still the head coach and the buck stops with him. Too old and senile is no excuse even if it were true (which it’s not). He could have stopped it.

    I just don’t see the witch hunt. Sandusky is in jail. More to come maybe. Whether Joe would have been charged or not is irrelevant when considering that the reputation of the football team led to this not being exposed. His reputation as being better than the cheaters is exposed. The football team became bigger than human decency and had to be cut off at the knees. Whether they beat around the bush on Cam Newton, UN*, whatever else…once child rape is an issue the NCAA must stand up and say this is where we refuse to pussyfoot around and beat around the bush, this program and culture will be punished severely and then the court of law can deal with the jail time.

  2. phillypacker 07/24/2012 at 10:12 PM #

    Hungwolf,

    You’re making yourself look really bad. Joe Pa was not a “figurehead.” You’re making me and probably other people mad by keeping at this attempt at trying to mitigate Paterno’s guilt. This went one from since 1999. Paterno hid this, period. He enabled a child rapist for more than a decade. Knock it off.

  3. graywolf 07/25/2012 at 6:46 AM #

    4in12 Says:
    July 24th, 2012 at 8:35 am
    I disagree that there was a loss of institutional control – the institution was controlling the cover-up!

    And the same thing is happening at UN*…..COVER-UP from lowest to the highest portions of UNC-CH and the UNC system.

  4. packplantpath 07/25/2012 at 7:51 AM #

    Pack Mentality, this is where you lose me:

    “Whether Joe would have been charged or not is irrelevant when considering that the reputation of the football team led to this not being exposed.”

    It has nothing to do with football. That is a leap of logic I can’t make. Do you have any idea the number of times similar situations arise and are covered up? Outside of football programs. Within families even? Fear, denial, and yes embarrassment to be associated with a sleazebag play a role. But to claim it is because of football denies the history of such incidents the world over.

    They are covered up because people don’t want it to be true and they ignore it. Paterno wasn’t the first or last man to do the wrong thing and let an evil person continue. It is wrong. But still very common.

    Do you call the dog catcher when you see your neighbor beating their dog?

  5. WuffDad 07/25/2012 at 8:09 AM #

    “Institutional Control” relies on the institution having the ethics and morals to be right and just. When it doesn’t “control” just means cover ups, manipulation, subterfuge, and arrogance. Sound familiar to anybody ’round here? So there is no lack of “Institutional Control” while those go on. The NCAA needs to redefine what they mean to enforce.

  6. Tau837 07/25/2012 at 8:31 AM #

    “It has nothing to do with football.”

    I have to disagree with this. Yes, people cover up atrocities for many reasons. For example, in this case, one reason for Paterno may have been loyalty to Sandusky. But there is absolutely no question that part of the rationale for the principals involved was to avoid tarnishing the Penn State football program.

    If Sandusky was not affiliated with the football program, do you think these principals would have covered it up in the same way? I don’t.

  7. packplantpath 07/25/2012 at 9:38 AM #

    “If Sandusky was not affiliated with the football program, do you think these principals would have covered it up in the same way? I don’t.”

    I think you would be shocked at the levels of human denial if you ever start looking into these kind of situations. It is very common that they are covered up for some period of time until some outraged individual finally blows the cover.

    This one just made it longer than most. People do a great job at believing what they want to believe contrary to facts, just like in politics.

  8. Pack Mentality 07/25/2012 at 10:04 AM #

    packplantpath,
    Even if your argument was correct that football played no part in the decision to cover up (which I don’t believe for a second), why should the football program be spared punishment by the NCAA? If the football program and school are covering up child rape for whatever reason they need to be hammered. The whole argument of “this is criminal, not football, so the NCAA should stay out” doesn’t matter one bit to me. If the lawyers who work for the NCAA can’t make the case that football administrations working in conjunction with the school administration resulting in a child rapist to operate for over a decade is not a special exception and they cannot find a way to get involved then they are idiots. But of course, they did get involved, hammered PSU, and PSU is not appealing…so it seems that they don’t agree with your assessment.

    “People do a great job at believing what they want to believe contrary to facts, just like in politics.”

    If that is an implication that those who believe differently than you are believing “contrary to the facts” it is a laughably ironic thing to say! You claim that this had nothing to do with football when the facts – as stated by PSU’s sponsored report and the ex-FBI director – disagree with your vew.

  9. packplantpath 07/25/2012 at 10:29 AM #

    PM, let me clarify. It is quite possible football did play a role in the coverup. But that is a conclusion without evidence to support it (as far as I have seen). We get lots of innuendo that it probably was to protect football, and these are logical conclusions in absence of specialized knowledge of these kinds of situations. Logical isn’t necessarily correct.

    In light of the history of such coverups in other situations, it is not necessary for “protect football” to have any relevant role in the coverup. Unless there is some evidence I’ve missed, it is an unsupported conclusion. Doesn’t matter who came to that conclusion.

    In order to assume that the people involved willfully engaged in a coverup of a crime of this magnitude, you have to accept that they are truly evil people to put football over criminal rape of children. That is a conclusion that could be true, but doesn’t seem very likely for so many people. Given the level of public outrage over the situation, you truly believe that someone had enough facts to come to the conclusion that Sandusky is a serial pedophile, yet chose to do nothing? And that this happened at multiple levels of the administration with multiple people? To protect football?

    That requires a level of malice I can’t attribute to such a significant number of people when denial of suspicion is well documented in such cases. Many people probably had an inkling in the back of their mind that something was wrong. They always do. They simply don’t act on it.

  10. TruthBKnown Returns 07/25/2012 at 10:44 AM #

    There are two aspects to this:

    1) The criminal aspect (Sandusky’s crimes against children, and the crimes of not reporting him to the authorities), and…

    2) The sporting aspect (the cover-up that was done with the intention of protecting football from scandal). THIS aspect is why the NCAA was well within their rights to throw down the hammer of Thor on Penn State.

    If Sandusky had robbed a bank, or the Penn State administrators had participated in a Ponzi scheme, then this would not be about protecting football. So the NCAA would have had no good reason to come after them. It would be purely about individuals committing crimes, completely outside of sports.

    The NCAA was very much justified for doing this. This happened BECAUSE people wanted to protect football. It is only logical that the best punishment is to take away football, the crown jewel that was so worshiped that adults were willing to look the other way while children were harmed, in order to protect that crown jewel.

  11. FuquayWolf 07/25/2012 at 10:53 AM #

    My only complaint about the NCAA sanctions for Penn State are the unprecedented nature in how they were handled: I believe these are the first penalties handed down by the NCAA Exec Committee, rather than the Committee on Infractions. Further, they were handed down using information from a third party (the Freeh Report), rather than an investigation conducted by NCAA staff. (To put that in perspective, imagine if the NCAA had decided not to conduct its own investigation of our basketball program in 1990 and decided instead to just use the Poole Commission report as its basis for penalties). However, my concern over this entirely new and unprecedented punishment regime is greatly tempered though by how unprecedented the Penn State situation was. There has never been anything like this in the history of the NCAA – a situation where university leadership not only concealed heinous criminal activity, but continued to allow the individual responsible to facilitate the criminal activity using university resources. I pray there never will be again.

    Where I think Mandel makes a great point is by pointing out the hypocrisy that is the NCAA. He’s not alone in that – the NCAA is roundly criticized for having a discipline regime that treats entities differently, and no one seems to know how the NCAA crafts its punishments. I think his point on UNC-CH is spot on. The top NCAA commercials all talk about how NCAA sports provide an EDUCATION and that “98% of [student-athletes] are going pro in something other than sports.” UNC-CH’s AfAm Scam is a direct affront to that mission of the NCAA. Further, UNC-CH continued this scam even as the NCAA was on campus investigating and beyond. What the UNC-CH AfAm Scam was doing was blatantly removing the “student” part of the NCAA “student-athlete” and even after the NCAA arrived on campus, they continued to do it right under the NCAA’s nose.

    Mandel is absolutely right. In too many situations, the NCAA has failed to rise to the occasion to provide sanctions that truly punish a school for their infractions. What makes Penn State different is that the NCAA finally swung a big stick. Mandel is rightly asking whether this is a one-off publicity stunt borne from the heinous nature of the scandal, or if Emmert is finally doing what he promised he would do as NCAA President – get tough on infractions. In the specific case of UNC-CH, their current response to the latest “prong” of the scandal, the rampant academic fraud that Dan Kane has extensively reported on, is sorely lacking. Either the NCAA doesn’t care about the integrity of academics at its member institutions (tough to square with both their advertising and their recent pounding of CalTech), or they need to get back to Chapel Hill and re-open their investigation, because clearly they had no idea at the time they were investigating the depths of the academic malfeasance. It wasn’t just a rogue tutor – it was department-level systemic cheating.

    The two scandals can’t be compared, because the subject matter is completely different. At Penn State, at least 10 innocent lives were irreparably harmed by the actions of the university leadership – no such damage was done at UNC-CH, only the integrity of a UNC-CH degree is at stake, and in comparison, that’s rather trivial. But what is potentially similar is the fact that at both schools, wrong-doing was occurring, it was known by high level university officials, and instead of acting to stop it, it was covered up and allowed to continue for over a decade. Because of the Freeh Report, we know that decade+ cover-up took place at Penn State. We suspect the same could be going on at UNC-CH, but we don’t know yet, because no one seems to want to investigate. That’s why Mandel was right to call out the NCAA on its treatment of UNC-CH.

  12. wufpup76 07/25/2012 at 11:11 AM #

    This is basically what I take away from the NCAA’s uneven / wildly inconsistent rulings and doled out punishments:

    NCAA: “If you’re going to publicly shame and embarrass our product which in turn may turn paying consumers away from our product on the whole, then we will throw the hammer down upon you.”

    “If you cheat, pay players, commit widespread academic fraud, etc., that doesn’t matter – so long as you’re raking in the tv money. If you’re helping the money grab then just keep on keepin’ on. Nobody really cares about cheating, etc., – they money is where it’s at.”

    Or basically as stated above: Always, ALWAYS…follow the money.

    For shame.

  13. MP 07/25/2012 at 12:11 PM #

    FW: Excellent post.

  14. TLeo 07/25/2012 at 12:46 PM #

    As much as PSU neeeded to be punished, it is toitally hypocritical of the NCAA to ignore the ‘holes fraud and cheating that continues to this day, yet hammer PSU the way they did. You are exactly right…it’s all about the money but I want to know just who at the NCAA has been paid off.

  15. TruthBKnown Returns 07/25/2012 at 1:33 PM #

    (To put that in perspective, imagine if the NCAA had decided not to conduct its own investigation of our basketball program in 1990 and decided instead to just use the Poole Commission report as its basis for penalties).

    Actually, that wouldn’t have been a bad thing. The Poole Commission pretty much ABSOLVED State of most of the accusations. If the NCAA acted based on the Poole Commission, it would have been a good thing for State.

    I think the point you were trying to make would have been better to ask “What if the NCAA had decided to use Peter Golenbock’s book?” THAT would have gotten us the death penalty!

    Using the results of a formal and official investigation is not a bad idea (assuming the investigation was independent, and not a bunch of homers trying to cover their behinds).

  16. FuquayWolf 07/25/2012 at 2:33 PM #

    TruthBKnown Returns:

    I’m aware that the Poole Commission cleared us of most of the tabloid-type fodder contained in Peter G!@#$%^&*’s waste of paper, and that if the NCAA had used its report, it would have been a good thing for us in that case. I agree with you when you say:

    “Using the results of a formal and official investigation is not a bad idea (assuming the investigation was independent, and not a bunch of homers trying to cover their behinds).”

    My concern is more of a slippery-slope argument, and you seem to share it with your parenthetical statement – how do you make sure that the third party investigation is proper? In the Penn State case, the Freeh Report was run by an independent organization headed by the former director of the FBI. I think its safe to say that investigation was well run. But take the Poole Commission for example. I’m relying on others’ characterizations of it, since I was still in elementary school at that time, but that investigation was put together by the UNC BOG – an organization run by people who largely went to a bitter rival and who may not be completely unbiased when it comes to NC State. Sure, it turns out that the Poole Commission investigation ended up being good for State, but what if it had been a railroad job by a bunch of people with an axe to grind about “State College”?

    What the NCAA has done is to create an entirely new precedent by basing severe penalties on an investigation it had no involvement with. That begs the question, what are the standards where the NCAA will accept an independent investigation as gospel? In other words, how do you determine if the independent investigation is up to snuff? Here’s a scenario: would an investigation by a prosecutor qualify? You expect that a prosecutor’s office would conduct a thorough, independent investigation that concentrates on truth and justice. So, hypothetically, what if the NCAA had decided to hammer Duke lacrosse in a similar manner to Penn State shortly after the completion of an investigation by the Durham County DA’s office? Remember, for some time after that story broke, Duke lacrosse was labeled in the media as being “out of control,” that the Mangum incident was indicative of their behavior, and that the coach knew all about their off-the-field shenanigans. Recall that Duke actually did hammer itself based upon Nifong’s findings (findings later completely overturned by the Attorney General’s office), but for purposes of this hypothetical, imagine that the NCAA did the hammering instead of Duke.

    As I said, the unprecedented nature of the Penn State scandal created the unprecedented action by the NCAA. I can buy into Emmert’s reasoning that the severity of the sanctions were necessary to cure a culture at Penn State that had sadly become “football over all else.” But this new punishment regime creates a lot of questions, and one of those is what are the parameters for when the NCAA will use a third-party investigation’s report?

  17. gumby 07/25/2012 at 3:48 PM #

    I recall reading recently (but can’t find it) that word out of Indiannapolis was the NCAA was not going to revisit UN* over the more current academic fraud discoveries, saying it was “a school matter, not an NCAA matter” (paraphrased).

    So let me get this straight – if a student athlete does SOME academic work and gets help with it, that is an impermissible benefit major NCAA violation. But if the student athlete does NO WORK AT ALL and the school gives him/her an “A”, that is not an NCAA violation? That’s a real WTF revelation…

  18. GAWolf 07/25/2012 at 4:46 PM #

    Just heard that apparently Emmert first said the same about PSU. It’s amazingt how public outcry can have the rules over night.

  19. TruthBKnown Returns 07/25/2012 at 5:11 PM #

    FuquayWolf, I agree with you to a point. But I don’t much trust an NCAA “investigation”, either. Because if anything, it reveals LESS than what is going on. That is because the NCAA does not have subpoena power. Often, the NCAA gets information from OTHER sources (like independent investigations), or someone ratting someone out. If the NCAA had to do this investigation before laying down the punishment, who knows how little they would have discovered.

    I think in this case, they have one Sandusky conviction, and they have Penn State admitting a lot of underhanded goings-on in their investigation. Basically, the NCAA had every reason to believe what they know already. There may be even more, but at least what is known is almost universally accepted as fact. I think they acted based on a “we’ve seen enough” mentality. The scandal may go even deeper, but even if it does, it probably wouldn’t affect their NCAA sanctions.

    I don’t think they jumped the gun. I think they saw all they needed to see, and acted on that.

  20. FuquayWolf 07/25/2012 at 5:36 PM #

    TruthBKnown:

    I agree with you regarding Penn State. The Freeh Report is comprehensive, and an important point is that both the NCAA and Penn State agreed to use the Freeh Report as the basis for the NCAA’s action. I don’t think they jumped the gun either. They waited until the Freeh Report was issued, examined it, and then swung their Hammer of Thor down onto Happy Valley, and rightly so.

    For the record, I don’t have any real issue with the Penn State penalties when viewed solely in the context of the Penn State scandal. My concern with this new precedent, as with any new precedent, is in making sure that the slippery slope is avoided. We don’t know yet how this new precedent will be applied in the future, and that uncertainty is worrisome.

    I also agree that NCAA “investigations” are not great either. For example, we now know that the NCAA has never seen the (216) phone records, and that their “investigation” into academic fraud during their time in Chapel Hill was cursory at best, seemingly limited to only the “rogue tutor.” That said, whatever faults a NCAA investigation may have, it is still conducted by the NCAA. The fact that the same organization that is penalizing you also investigated you helps to legitimize those penalties handed down by the NCAA after one of their investigations. I do with their investigations were more thorough though. Perhaps they can take some of the billions of dollars they earn from the Men’s Bball tournament and beef up their Enforcement Division.

  21. highstick 07/25/2012 at 6:17 PM #

    Just offering another circumstance…how does Catawba get hammered in this case? What’s the difference except for the money?

    http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2012/07/25/3405204/bond-doubled-for-coach-second.html

  22. mak4dpak 07/25/2012 at 8:20 PM #

    I read this article, and really sad what took place in this cover up @ PSU. But not in an effort to change the subject, but just wondering if there will be any articles on the new softball coach, which from what I understand is now a male. Just curious if there is info out there. Thanks.

  23. choppack1 07/25/2012 at 10:19 PM #

    The problem here isn’t the punishment – it’s how the punishment came about. It’s about not giving the President of an NCAA institution a show cause notice when you’ve been handing them out for much lesser offences to head coaches, assistants and other individuals.

    Finally, it’s Emmerts ludicrious attitude that Penn State was unique because “football” had become bigger than academics. Newsflash buddy – any Division 1A football team that allows football players whose high school grades deviate significantly than other students of a similar (pretty much all of them in BCS conferences) – play this game. The same issue exists in basketball as well.

    As I stated in another thread – the NCAA’s iron fist doesn’t mean anything in this case. Penn State gained no advantage by doing what they did. No kid wanted to go to Penn State because Sandusky was at Happy Valley.

    OTOH, you let a school set up fake classes. Allow an Assistant Head Coach to be a de facto runner for an agent. Allow a tutor, who happens to be in direct employment for the Head Coach to pay players parking tickets. Allow this same tutor to provide improper academic assistance…And the punishment for these transgressions? 1 year post-season ban. You allow Cam Newton’s Dad to demand 150K for his son’s services with little impact to his career.

    Now, ask yourself – if you were really serious about straightening out college sports – where it’s necessary to apply an iron fist.

    As far as this being a “football first” issue, I don’t buy it. Anyone who follows local school systems closely knows what the phrase “pass the trash” means. If you don’t know – the “trash” doesn’t mean the teacher is necessarily bad, it usually means that the teacher has had an allegation of improper behavior with students.

    I look forward to the NCAA thorougly investigating every criminal activity involving athletics now. It should keep their enforcement mechanism very busy.

    The most basic element of fairness is that you understand the consequences of breaking the rules, and that when you break the rules, the punishment is applied to rule breakers with similar circumstances equally.

    That’s the problem I have with the NCAA. It’s not really this punishment…It’s definitely unique – and Penn State deserves a severe punishment. However, they need to treat Spainer and others like they’ve treated other coaches – and they need to make clear the consequences for breaking rules that give other programs advantages over their competitors.

  24. Wufpacker 07/26/2012 at 12:00 AM #

    “…and PSU is not appealing…so it seems that they don’t agree with your assessment.”

    Don’t be so sure about the first part (though they’re idiots if they do). Apparently some of the PSU BOTs are none too happy that they weren’t consulted and are publicly questioning the Pres’ authority to accept the deal.

    As far as the second part of that quote…agreeing to the deal and/or the lack of an appeal by no means necessarily indicates that PSU agrees with the NCAA’s punishment or their authority to do so in this case.

  25. newt 07/26/2012 at 8:50 AM #

    I don’t care if the NCAA does anything more to UNC. Important thing is that they are exposed as the frauds they are. No UNC fan can look down his nose at anybody else and spout off about “class” and “the Carolina Way” without being laughed upon.

    If the NCAA stepped in further at UNC, that would only give apologists something to point a finger at and complain. Right now is perfection. UNC can only just sit there taking punches with nobody else to lash out upon and no system or media to blame for their lowly rep.

Leave a Reply