I'd make a couple comments:  

1) As a Penn State alum., I believe it's important to note that, after a police investigation in 1997 that did not result in any charges being filed, Sandusky was told that he would never be head coach and, it would seem, he was possibly pushed into retirement in 1998.  The problem was that he was left with an emeritus status that gave him access to campus facilities and allowed him (as I recall) to operate camps using campus facilities in conjunction with his charity.  Unless something else were to come to light, it appears to me that there was an administration cover-up or failure to report a crime (both under Commonwealth & Federal law) based on McQueary's report of the event in 2002.   However, Sandusky was not working for Joe Paterno or the football program at the time McQueary informed Paterno and the two administration officials.  I cannot excuse, condone or fathom the decision made by Paterno and especially his assistant in not following up on the matter with the two administration officials, but I don't believe that the circumstances suggest any infraction of NCAA rules has occurred.   Although I do think that, if the allegations of failure to report are proved, then the two officials may see some jail time and the university will be hit hard under the Federal statute that attempts to limit suppression of crime reports on college campuses (although likely in a settlement).

I haven't followed the Syracuse/Fine situation nearly as closely, but my understanding is that it is somewhat similar; at least in that university officials and Boeheim were aware of a prior allegation and investigation of Fine.  However, even were Syracuse not saved by the NY statute of limitations from further investigation, I'm not sure why the matter would be within the jurisdiction of the NCAA.  I haven't followed up on whether the same failure to report under the federal statute will become an issue for Syracuse, although I do recall reading that evidence was being turned over to the US attorney.

2)  Perhaps more germane to this thread, I believe that the issue must be that the NCAA rules require or anticipate that a member institution will administer its own rules.  So, the problem with the failure to suspend players that violated that internal rules gives rise to the suspicion of a lack of institutional control to enforce its own stated policies.  I am not aware of any previous probation that would put Syracuse in danger of a "repeat violator" penalty.  IMO, I would be stunned if Syracuse received anything close to a death penalty.   Something more along the lines of the penalties laid down against UNC football or UConn basketball are far more likely.

Posted by rogelio on 3/20/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I'd make a couple comments:  

1) As a Penn State alum., I believe it's important to note that, after a police investigation in 1997 that did not result in any charges being filed, Sandusky was told that he would never be head coach and, it would seem, he was possibly pushed into retirement in 1998.  The problem was that he was left with an emeritus status that gave him access to campus facilities and allowed him (as I recall) to operate camps using campus facilities in conjunction with his charity.  Unless something else were to come to light, it appears to me that there was an administration cover-up or failure to report a crime (both under Commonwealth & Federal law) based on McQueary's report of the event in 2002.   However, Sandusky was not working for Joe Paterno or the football program at the time McQueary informed Paterno and the two administration officials.  I cannot excuse, condone or fathom the decision made by Paterno and especially his assistant in not following up on the matter with the two administration officials, but I don't believe that the circumstances suggest any infraction of NCAA rules has occurred.   Although I do think that, if the allegations of failure to report are proved, then the two officials may see some jail time and the university will be hit hard under the Federal statute that attempts to limit suppression of crime reports on college campuses (although likely in a settlement).

I haven't followed the Syracuse/Fine situation nearly as closely, but my understanding is that it is somewhat similar; at least in that university officials and Boeheim were aware of a prior allegation and investigation of Fine.  However, even were Syracuse not saved by the NY statute of limitations from further investigation, I'm not sure why the matter would be within the jurisdiction of the NCAA.  I haven't followed up on whether the same failure to report under the federal statute will become an issue for Syracuse, although I do recall reading that evidence was being turned over to the US attorney.

2)  Perhaps more germane to this thread, I believe that the issue must be that the NCAA rules require or anticipate that a member institution will administer its own rules.  So, the problem with the failure to suspend players that violated that internal rules gives rise to the suspicion of a lack of institutional control to enforce its own stated policies.  I am not aware of any previous probation that would put Syracuse in danger of a "repeat violator" penalty.  IMO, I would be stunned if Syracuse received anything close to a death penalty.   Something more along the lines of the penalties laid down against UNC football or UConn basketball are far more likely.

I agree with most of what you say. Regarding Fine as compares to Sandusky and the schools' actions - I believe (and I think you do as well) that PSU felt something unseemly had happened with Sandusky in 1997 and that was why he was eased into retirement. The 2003 independent investigation by SU and the team of lawyers was unable to get any kind of corroboration for the Davis claims, and the school felt (and still feels) that they exercised due diligence in investigating the claims, unsubstantiated claims, of a former SU ball boy and Fine family friend who may or may not have had a personal axe to grind. In that light, and since the Syracuse PD had also declined to pursue the matter further, I don't see why SU should or would be required to notify the NCAA of anything.

Regarding the failure to administrate the school's own drug policy, yes I expect a minor punishment from the NCAA, but fail to see how this indicates a lack of institutional control.

Posted by dacj501 on 3/20/2012 2:21:00 PM (view original):

Posted by rogelio on 3/20/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):
I'd make a couple comments:  

1) As a Penn State alum., I believe it's important to note that, after a police investigation in 1997 that did not result in any charges being filed, Sandusky was told that he would never be head coach and, it would seem, he was possibly pushed into retirement in 1998.  The problem was that he was left with an emeritus status that gave him access to campus facilities and allowed him (as I recall) to operate camps using campus facilities in conjunction with his charity.  Unless something else were to come to light, it appears to me that there was an administration cover-up or failure to report a crime (both under Commonwealth & Federal law) based on McQueary's report of the event in 2002.   However, Sandusky was not working for Joe Paterno or the football program at the time McQueary informed Paterno and the two administration officials.  I cannot excuse, condone or fathom the decision made by Paterno and especially his assistant in not following up on the matter with the two administration officials, but I don't believe that the circumstances suggest any infraction of NCAA rules has occurred.   Although I do think that, if the allegations of failure to report are proved, then the two officials may see some jail time and the university will be hit hard under the Federal statute that attempts to limit suppression of crime reports on college campuses (although likely in a settlement).

I haven't followed the Syracuse/Fine situation nearly as closely, but my understanding is that it is somewhat similar; at least in that university officials and Boeheim were aware of a prior allegation and investigation of Fine.  However, even were Syracuse not saved by the NY statute of limitations from further investigation, I'm not sure why the matter would be within the jurisdiction of the NCAA.  I haven't followed up on whether the same failure to report under the federal statute will become an issue for Syracuse, although I do recall reading that evidence was being turned over to the US attorney.

2)  Perhaps more germane to this thread, I believe that the issue must be that the NCAA rules require or anticipate that a member institution will administer its own rules.  So, the problem with the failure to suspend players that violated that internal rules gives rise to the suspicion of a lack of institutional control to enforce its own stated policies.  I am not aware of any previous probation that would put Syracuse in danger of a "repeat violator" penalty.  IMO, I would be stunned if Syracuse received anything close to a death penalty.   Something more along the lines of the penalties laid down against UNC football or UConn basketball are far more likely.

I agree with most of what you say. Regarding Fine as compares to Sandusky and the schools' actions - I believe (and I think you do as well) that PSU felt something unseemly had happened with Sandusky in 1997 and that was why he was eased into retirement. The 2003 independent investigation by SU and the team of lawyers was unable to get any kind of corroboration for the Davis claims, and the school felt (and still feels) that they exercised due diligence in investigating the claims, unsubstantiated claims, of a former SU ball boy and Fine family friend who may or may not have had a personal axe to grind. In that light, and since the Syracuse PD had also declined to pursue the matter further, I don't see why SU should or would be required to notify the NCAA of anything.

Regarding the failure to administrate the school's own drug policy, yes I expect a minor punishment from the NCAA, but fail to see how this indicates a lack of institutional control.

I think we agree entirely as to the NCAA.   My understanding is that there was an allegation that a victim had made a report to Syracuse administration officials and that no report was made to police (either campus or otherwise).   If so, then Syracuse may have run afoul of the same federal criminal reporting statute that is involved in the federal investigation of Penn State.  IMO, that does not implicate NCAA jurisdiction, but may bring a penalty or investigation by the Department of Education or the local US Attorney.

Posted by dacj501 on 3/20/2012 2:12:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 3/20/2012 1:58:00 PM (view original):
I have never compared this situation to Baylor. On that, you must have me confused with another poster. As to the rest of it, I think I basically said everything you just said regarding the Fine situation. And I did preface my death penalty comments with "if all allegations are true".

professor - to go back to your preface regarding "all the allegations are true" : Are you including the allegation that Boeheim  knew about abuse occurring and looked the other way? If so, then I would have to agree, IF all those allegations are true, SU should suffer. However, Davis himself has changed his tune on that allegation. Originally Davis stated specifically that while on the road Boeheim looked into Fine's hotel room and saw (a fully clothed Davis) lying on Fine's bed with Fine watching TV. First, how that alone (a kid travelling with the Fine's who had spent many years in the Fine home and was along on the trip not as a rep of SU as a ball boy (those days had passed, and SU does not have ball boys travel) but instead as a family friend of the Fines and babysitter for the Fine children) could be seen as knowledge of abuse is curious. BUT, Boeheim denies even that allegation, saying he has never been inside Bernie Fine's hotel room on the road (make of that what you will) and that he never saw Davis with Fine in any kind of compromising or untoward scenario.

In fact, this is the basis of the Boeheim defense for the current lawsuit. Davis is alleging defamation because Boeheim called him a liar and out for money in that famous first press conference. The "liars" comment came in direct response to the allegation that Boeheim witnessed Davis in Fine's room. Davis later changed that claim, but still is alleging defamation, despite Boeheim's apology for his insensitivity to possible abuse victims. The lawsuit itself is another joke btw, but that's for a different thread I guess.

Yes, I was absolutely including Boeheim looking the other way as part of a pre-condition for the death penalty. If there was no looking the other way, then there's probably no cover-up and no culture of sexual abuse, which I believe would be critical for supporting a lack of institutional control argument . As you alluded, four different organizations conducted investigations of the Fine allegations previously: Syracuse University, the Syracuse Post-Standard newspaper, ESPN and the Syracuse Police Department. No arrests were ever made, and no stories were ever published as a result of those investigations, so it was certainly reasonable for SU/Boeheim to have considered Fine essentialy cleared of wrongdoing. 

Nevertheless, I can also see (again, if all the other Fine allegations are true, aside from Boeheim knowing) how the university or program could be held accountable (not just Fine, personally), since he was an employee of the program, and the (alleged) abuse was occurring on program-sanctioned trips with minors who were associated with the program. If Fine were molesting kids on his own time, not on university basketball trips, with kids who weren't associated with SU basketball, then that's not really a university problem. That all of those things are (allegedly) true, it's hard for me to see how it's not a university problem. If I'm a manager at my company, and we go on a company business trip, and I molest a company intern who travels with us on said trip, then my company is going to be held responsible along with me personally.

BTW, dac, I completely agree with your assessment of the defamation lawsuit against Boeheim (provided Boeheim is telling the truth about not looking the other way). Boeheim knows firsthand whether he was in Fine's hotel room, and whether he saw anything. So he is one of only 3 people in the world who definitively knows firsthand whether Accuser No. 1 is actually lying or not. He also knew that Accuser No. 2 had changed his story over the years from originally saying he was not molested, to later saying he was... so he was clearly lying at one point... the only question is whether he was lying before, or lying now? 

Posted by professor17 on 3/20/2012 12:35:00 PM (view original):

Posted by ll316 on 3/20/2012 12:27:00 PM (view original):

Posted by professor17 on 3/20/2012 11:50:00 AM (view original):
Assuming all allegations made are true, I think Syracuse should receive an SMU-style death penalty and forfeit all wins dating back to 2001, which would include vacating the 2003 national championship. Between the drug testing, Bernie Fine scandal, and playing an ineligible player for much of this season, there's no question that this is the definition of lack of institutional control, and the program should be shut down. And I'm saying this as a Syracuse fan and supporter for the past 25 years.

Didn't it come out that the Bernie Fine stuff was made up?  Or is that still ongoing?

There were 4 accusers. Nos. 3 & 4 don't appear all that credible or have gaping holes/inconsistencies in their stories, but I think an investigation is still ongoing in one of them. The DA said that No. 1 & 2 were credible, but beyond the statute of limitations, so no further investigation. No. 2 changed his story from the initial investigation a few years ago, and No. 1 was having an affair with Fine's wife. No. 1 said Boeheim personally witnessed acts of abuse and did nothing about it. It's all so strange and convoluted that we'll probably never know what really happened.  

Ah, that makes sense.  Thanks for clarifying.  The last thing I remember was hearing about the uncredible witness or 2.  Then it basically went away.

Posted by professor17 on 3/20/2012 3:03:00 PM (view original):
BTW, dac, I completely agree with your assessment of the defamation lawsuit against Boeheim (provided Boeheim is telling the truth about not looking the other way). Boeheim knows firsthand whether he was in Fine's hotel room, and whether he saw anything. So he is one of only 3 people in the world who definitively knows firsthand whether Accuser No. 1 is actually lying or not. He also knew that Accuser No. 2 had changed his story over the years from originally saying he was not molested, to later saying he was... so he was clearly lying at one point... the only question is whether he was lying before, or lying now? 

I agree with all of what you've just said in these 2 posts. I actually felt the school could be justified for at least suspending if not worse Coach Boeheim for the insensitivity of his liars press conference alone, even if (as I do personally believe) everything coach said was true. Both accusers clearly would be liars based on that and it is hard to say Coach was wrong when he stated the accusers were looking to get paid given that the only legal action to arise from this whole affair is the 2 related accusers using Gloria Allred to try to get money from Boeheim for his statements... I do find the irony of that amusing - If you say that I am only out for money I will sue you for it seems a shaky legal issue... After Boeheim's apology, and knowing about his charitable efforts in multiple areas for many years in the community I changed my mind regarding suspensions or the like  - as did many others I think.

I'm pretty sure that the NCAA has rules regarding drug use. Schools may be responsible for implementing a drug testing policy to comply with NCAA rules and have ownership of their own drug testing programs, but the drug testing programs are in place to comply with NCAA rules. Schools can't get rid of them, and they can't enforce them arbitrarily. Enforcing a drug testing program should be fairly easy for a school. From the school's perspective, the results are black and white. The schools don't have a role in manipulating individual results. An athlete either tests positive or does not. If an athlete tests positive, then the school has responsibility for and complete control over enforcing the punishment required by the drug program.

I get people thinking this shouldn't be serious because its likely just college kids taking recreational drugs. But, this is also a school failing to comply with NCAA rules regarding a compliance program over which the school had complete control. From that perspective, this seems more serious than the normal compliance issues (boosters and agents paying players) for which the NCAA punishes schools.

thanks for posting dac - i found that very informative and helpful.

i agree that it would be a huge stretch for syracuse to get the death penalty - even if boeheim was not only aware of the Fine situation, but was involved. its just not an NCAA issue, it seems to me.

i didn't realize (but have checked since dac's post), seems like its been 1-2 years since the recreational drug thing, and it also looks like it was recreational, not performance enhancing. so i don't see the problem. like dac said, bunch of college kids smoking pot, thats not news. now, i wouldnt be surprised to see the NCAA slap them on the wrist, as if to say - if you are going to let your students smoke weed, then stop drug testing, you idiots!! but thats about all i would expect.

Marijuana is on the NCAA's list of banned drugs. See definition of Street Drugs:

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/test/student-athlete+experience/ncaa+banned+drugs+list