Say it ain't so, Joe

[IceCap]

One of the trustees, this guy named Anthony Lubrano, ran for and won his seat based on a platform almost entirely concerned with Joe Paterno: "securing a public apology" for firing him, posthumously re-hiring him, and for all I know after the first two, exhuming his corpse and using an elaborate system of wires and pulleys to re-enact on a weekly basis the time he crapped his pants in the middle of a game.

Seriously? If so, that's North Korean levels of crazy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_President_of_the_Republic

[The_Admiral]

http://ps4rs.org/2012anthonyplubrano.html

March 14, 2012-Anthony P. Lubrano, a candidate for the Penn State Board of Trustees announced today his plan to begin airing a five minute commercial entitled, "Tribute to Joe Paterno." The media schedule will be available at his campaign website www.Lubrano4PSU.com.

Lubrano said that his objectives in producing this commercial are several fold.

"First, I want the Board of Trustees to acknowledge their mistake in firing Coach Paterno and offer a public apology to the Paterno family. Since Nov 9th, my contention has been that the Penn State community cannot begin to move forward until such an apology is made. I have shared this view publicly and privately with many of the Trustees."

"Second, I want the wrongful termination of Coach Paterno as head football coach rescinded followed immediately by the granting of Head Football Coach Emeritus posthumously."

Well, North Korea and State College are both mountainous and isolated from the real world. Let's just hope they don't take a page from the Basques and start blowing up Pittsburgh.

[rams80]

WHO MAKES COMMERCIALS FOR BOARD OF TRUSTEE ELECTIONS?!

[IceCap]

Like I needed any more reason to view these idiots as cult like. G-ddamn it....

[pmoehrin]

I think your seeing just why Rodney Erickson did not want these people in the room when discussing Penn State's sanctions with the NCAA, because some of the trustees will not accept any form of punishment to the footbal program and will be willing to martyr the school if those are the lengths they have to go to in order to fight for the football program.

I'm not all that worried because I think the case is pretty much DOA. From a court case perspective I'm not sure what they're argument would be. Is it that the NCAA doesn't have the right to do this? Or that the President acted out of line by not consulting with the trustees? Or a combination of both? Either way I don't think your going to find a judge that will touch either issue. I don't think a judge wants to make some landmark ruling that either permits or restricts NCAA power, and in terms of not getting in touch with the trustees, that's an strictly in house issue.

[crashcarson15]

I want to thank the Eternal Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of State College, Joe Paterno for the prosperity he has brought us as a people. We are always full and always have the best because of our Eternal Leader. I also want to thank the Dear Leader, Jay Paterno, the Eternal Leader's trusted successor.

[Sodboy13]

I want to thank the Eternal Leader of the Democratic People's Republic of State College, Joe Paterno for the prosperity he has brought us as a people.

Yeah, he never got eleven hole-in-ones, though. That was more Jerry's speed.

[bosrs1]

I think your seeing just why Rodney Erickson did not want these people in the room when discussing Penn State's sanctions with the NCAA, because some of the trustees will not accept any form of punishment to the footbal program and will be willing to martyr the school if those are the lengths they have to go to in order to fight for the football program.

I'm not all that worried because I think the case is pretty much DOA. From a court case perspective I'm not sure what they're argument would be. Is it that the NCAA doesn't have the right to do this? Or that the President acted out of line by not consulting with the trustees? Or a combination of both? Either way I don't think your going to find a judge that will touch either issue. I don't think a judge wants to make some landmark ruling that either permits or restricts NCAA power, and in terms of not getting in touch with the trustees, that's an strictly in house issue.

Yeah I seem to remember the Supreme Court saying that the NCAA did not have to grant due process to any school since they're not a state but rather a private actor. I'll see if I can dig up the case.

[HedleyLamarr]

Let's just hope they don't take a page from the Basques and start blowing up Pittsburgh.

That may not be so bad.....

[dfwabel]

I think your seeing just why Rodney Erickson did not want these people in the room when discussing Penn State's sanctions with the NCAA, because some of the trustees will not accept any form of punishment to the footbal program and will be willing to martyr the school if those are the lengths they have to go to in order to fight for the football program.

I'm not all that worried because I think the case is pretty much DOA. From a court case perspective I'm not sure what they're argument would be. Is it that the NCAA doesn't have the right to do this? Or that the President acted out of line by not consulting with the trustees? Or a combination of both? Either way I don't think your going to find a judge that will touch either issue. I don't think a judge wants to make some landmark ruling that either permits or restricts NCAA power, and in terms of not getting in touch with the trustees, that's an strictly in house issue.

Yeah I seem to remember the Supreme Court saying that the NCAA did not have to grant due process to any school since they're not a state but rather a private actor. I'll see if I can dig up the case.

You are thinking of either Tarkanian vs. NCAA or the case with the female athlete (NCAA vs. Smith). Need for re-evaluation of NCAA as a state actor.

However, there is a pending case involving a former coach at the University at Buffalo could change that.

[pmoehrin]

I think your seeing just why Rodney Erickson did not want these people in the room when discussing Penn State's sanctions with the NCAA, because some of the trustees will not accept any form of punishment to the footbal program and will be willing to martyr the school if those are the lengths they have to go to in order to fight for the football program.

I'm not all that worried because I think the case is pretty much DOA. From a court case perspective I'm not sure what they're argument would be. Is it that the NCAA doesn't have the right to do this? Or that the President acted out of line by not consulting with the trustees? Or a combination of both? Either way I don't think your going to find a judge that will touch either issue. I don't think a judge wants to make some landmark ruling that either permits or restricts NCAA power, and in terms of not getting in touch with the trustees, that's an strictly in house issue.

Yeah I seem to remember the Supreme Court saying that the NCAA did not have to grant due process to any school since they're not a state but rather a private actor. I'll see if I can dig up the case.

My attitude as a judge would be I'm not completely sure what the argument is at is pertains to the NCAA, and I would not want to have court resources wasted on having an open discussion about issues that should have been handled in house. How much power is divided up between the Board of Trustees and the President is entirely Penn State's problem. Plus the NCAA has a written agreement that said they could do this which I would think the trustees would have a hard time proving should null and voided.

I just wouldn't hear the case and that's what I expect will happen.

[pcgd]

Doesn't a private organization (the NCAA) have the right to punish or not punish a volunteer member of its organization? I mean couldn't Penn State just leave the NCAA? Or couldn't the NCAA kick Penn State out?

Bylaw 3.2.5 Loss of Active Membership

3.2.5.1 Termination or Suspension. The membership of any active member failing to maintain the academic or athletics standards required for such membership or failing to meet the conditions and obligations of membership may be suspended, terminated, or otherwise disciplined by a vote of two-thirds of the delegates present and voting at an annual Convention.

Sounds to me they can pretty much do whatever they want to any school. If Penn State has a problem with it go join the NAIA...

[dfwabel]

I think your seeing just why Rodney Erickson did not want these people in the room when discussing Penn State's sanctions with the NCAA, because some of the trustees will not accept any form of punishment to the footbal program and will be willing to martyr the school if those are the lengths they have to go to in order to fight for the football program.

I'm not all that worried because I think the case is pretty much DOA. From a court case perspective I'm not sure what they're argument would be. Is it that the NCAA doesn't have the right to do this? Or that the President acted out of line by not consulting with the trustees? Or a combination of both? Either way I don't think your going to find a judge that will touch either issue. I don't think a judge wants to make some landmark ruling that either permits or restricts NCAA power, and in terms of not getting in touch with the trustees, that's an strictly in house issue.

Yeah I seem to remember the Supreme Court saying that the NCAA did not have to grant due process to any school since they're not a state but rather a private actor. I'll see if I can dig up the case.

My attitude as a judge would be I'm not completely sure what the argument is at is pertains to the NCAA, and I would not want to have court resources wasted on having an open discussion about issues that should have been handled in house. How much power is divided up between the Board of Trustees and the President is entirely Penn State's problem. Plus the NCAA has a written agreement that said they could do this which I would think the trustees would have a hard time proving should null and voided.

I just wouldn't hear the case and that's what I expect will happen.

1- You are not a judge or even a constitutional law attorney.

2- The standing judge would also look at previous cases, specifically Tarkanian vs. NCAA. That case went to SCOTUS was 5-4 in favor if the NCAA. In the descent, the late Justice Byron Wright wrote (italics are from the author of the 2007 University of Pennsylvania Law Review paper I referred to earlier):

"First, Tarkanian was suspended for violations of NCAA rules, which UNLV embraced in its agreement with the NCAA."

In other words, the NCAA set up the rules, and the alleged breaking of those rules was the sole reason for the coach's suspension.

"Second, the NCAA and UNLV also agreed that the NCAA would conduct the hearings concerning violations of its rules."

The dissenters clearly recognized that UNLV had, in fact, delegated some degree of authority to the NCAA enforcement proceedings.

"Third, the NCAA and UNLV agreed that the findings of fact made by the NCAA at the hearings it conducted would be binding on UNLV."/quote]

Not only did the Association dictate the procedures to be employed, but the school agreed to be bound by them, with no right of appeal; that is, UNLV agreed "to accept the NCAA's findings of fact as in some way superior to [the school's] own. These three elements, added together, convinced the four dissenters that Tarkanian deserved the Fourteenth Amendment's due process protections.

[The_Admiral]

You are not a judge or even a constitutional law attorney.

Way to go, you've just destroyed message boards. Now the only posts we can have will be GFB on sports logos and Mings on architecture.

[dfwabel]

You are not a judge or even a constitutional law attorney.

Way to go, you've just destroyed message boards. Now the only posts we can have will be GFB on sports logos and Mings on architecture.

I thought that talk about "Gabby Douglas' hair", "Serena Williams' Crip Walk", "Josh Hamilton's battle with smokeless tobacco" already broke message boards.

[CS85]

I kind of want to say something, but it would venture into the "dfwabel has become more of a downer than BBTV" and stray from the "Paterno/PSU is a creepy, horrible thing."

[dfwabel]

I kind of want to say something, but it would venture into the "dfwabel has become more of a downer than BBTV" and stray from the "Paterno/PSU is a creepy, horrible thing."

Just say it, I really do not care.

If this Penn State case concerning 'state action' destroys the NCAA, I would appreciate what those at Penn State did. Most of us would agree that the NCAA system is broken. Any cause which could impact the NCAA's oversight I am in favor of, especially if it involves 'state action'.

[Kevin W.]

Why would destroying the NCAA be a good thing? Surely you don't think putting the athletic careers of thousands of student-athletes at risk is a good idea.

[dfwabel]

Why would destroying the NCAA be a good thing? Surely you don't think putting the athletic careers of thousands of student-athletes at risk is a good idea.

KevinW., this really is a issue for another thread, but with the Buffalo case, the standing Ed O'Bannon case, and other licensing issues plus the thought of "state actor" makes me want the NCAA to be looked at again. They control more than they should, especially with those who sign Letters of Intent who are minors.

[Gothamite]

Problem is, I don't trust the Universities themselves to handle these affairs. If anything, the Paterno case offers ample proof of that to this day.

I have been a vocal critic of the NCAA at times, but there are some things that really ought to be handled by a centralized body.