Penn State has been fined $60
million, the money to go to child abuse prevention and treatment. In
addition, the Big Ten athletic conference has taken away Penn State's
share of bowl revenue for the next four years, another $13 million.
Penn State has announced that the $60 million fine will be taken from the athletics reserve fund, the capital maintenance budget, and
if necessary, an internal bond issue. The athletics reserve fund contains $17 million, so the majority will have to come from capital maintenance. The phrase “capital maintenance” does not appear in
the online version of the 2012-13 Penn State budget. In general, capital maintenance refers to the amount of capital, either financial or physical, an
institution wishes to maintain. My best guess is that they plan to
spend less money maintaining their physical facilities, although
their budget indicates that they already have a substantial backlog
of deferred maintenance. At the present time, it's impossible to
tell what percentage of the fine will ultimately be taken from the university's
operating budget, and what percentage will come from private
contributions.
Whenever a university announces that
they're spending big bucks on a nonacademic project, they try to
pacify students, faculty and the public by assuring us that the money
will come only from private contributions. But given the relative
ease with which universities can transfer funds one budgetary
category to another, this is about as credible as the claim that
proceeds from the state lottery “benefit senior citizens.” The
athletics reserve fund, for example, could be temporarily drawn down,
but quietly replenished a few years later when no one is paying
attention. The fact that Penn State is a private university, not
subject to Pennsylvania's sunshine law, makes budget manipulation easier. As they file into their delapidated classrooms or try
to cope with the latest round of cuts to the “Paterno Library,” students
and faculty might want to ask themselves what that $73 million would
have been used for had it not been spent on paying the fine.
By the way, 14% of Penn State's operating budget comes from state appropriations. If all $73
million ultimately comes out of the operating budget, that means the citizens of Pennsylvania have just been fined
$10.22 million by the NCAA and the Big Ten. I'm not sure what gives them the right to do that. I must have missed that meeting.
The number of new football
scholarships at Penn State is reduced from 25 to 15 per year for the
next five years. Obviously, this delivers a big hurt to a small
number of prospective students on the football team.
There is a four year ban on Penn
State bowl game appearances.
These last two punishments, along with
the ruling that current football players may transfer to other
universities and play football without the usual waiting period, will
affect the competitiveness of the Penn State football team, since it
will be less attractive to new recruits. This will have a negative
ripple affect on the economy of central Pennsylvania, especially
hotels, restaurants and bars, which depend on the football season for
much of their revenue.
All of Penn
State's wins from 1998 to 2012 are vacated. This primarily affects Joe
Paterno's legacy. He will no longer be referred to as the winningest
coach in the history of college football. I'm O. K. with that.
Penn State is placed on
probation for five years. The
consequences of this are unknown.
The primary losers
appear to be the students and employees of Penn State and the
citizens of Pennsylvania. None of these people have been
specifically identified as folks whose behavior requires
modification.
These penalties are
not directly relevant to the NCAA's claim that Penn State's football
culture had come to dominate the university, at the expense of
academic and moral values. To address this issue, the university
is required to take “other corrective actions,” including
adopting some of the recommendations of the Freeh Report (“especially
section 5.0”) and appointing a full-time athletics integrity
monitor.
Section 5.0 of the recommendations chapter of the Freeh report, entitled “Athletic
Department: Integration and Compliance,” deals with claim that it
had been allowed to become a closed community, not subject to
university rules and procedures. The section contains
recommendations that are somewhat related to that claim, such as
revising the organizational structure of the Athletic Department and
ensuring that it is subordinate to the university's Athletic
Compliance Office.
Section 1.0 is entitled “Penn State Culture,” but all it seems to do is appoint
a large committee with representatives from all university interest
groups to study the local culture and suggest changes. (For an interesting take on the culture of the Alabama region of Pennsylvania, see this article by a former Penn State instructor.)
In my judgment, none of the NCAA
directives address the real problem. Athletic Departments,
especially men's football and basketball programs, have become directly involved in university fund-raising. They play a major role
in entertaining wealthy alumni. The university becomes
dependent on them. This gives them special access to these large
contributors. When they don't get their way, coaches and athetic
directors can threaten to go over the heads of administrators, including the
President of the university, in order to influence university
decisions. Administrators know this, so they comply with the
Athletic Department's wishes.
Jerry Sandusky's behavior was tolerated
for 14 years primarily because Coach Paterno was able to persuade his
nominal bosses to look the other way. It's too bad we have no
transcripts of their conversations, because I'm not sure “persuade”
is the right word to use. Maybe he made them an offer they couldn't
refuse.
Addendum
Sportswriter Dave Zirin has pointed out
that neither the Freeh Report nor the NCAA have questioned the role
that former Attorney General, now Governor, Tom Corbett played in
delaying the prosecution of Jerry Sandusky. While the Attorney
General's office began investigating Sandusky in 2009, he was not
charged until November 2011. Corbett assigned only one or
two—depending on whom you believe—staff members to conduct the
investigation. Zirin argues that Corbett delayed charging Sandusky until after the 2010 gubernatorial election in order to
avoid offending Central Pennsylvania's wealthy ruling class, on whom
he was counting for political and financial support during the campaign. For example, he
received $650,000 in political contributions just from board members
of Second Mile, Sandusky's charitable foundation.
While Corbett has built a successful
political career around prosecuting high profile political
corruption, many would argue that he manipulated those prosecutions
in a partisan manner. Corbett has stated that state legislators from both the Elephant
and Jackass parties used taxpayer money for political
purposes, but Corbett, an Elephant, ensured that the Jackasses took most
of the blame by prosecuting them first with a series of highly
publicized show trials, while allowing the Elephant defendants
to quietly plead guilty later on.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Comments are always welcome.