Penn State (or the portion suing) wants their wins back more than they want $60 million is my guess.
Certainly it was. Letting child molesters use the facilities has nothing to do with the NCAA's mandate.
I don't think the NCAA fines programs for drunk driving, or domestic violence, or armed robbery, or anything other than violations of the NCAA's niceties relating to recruiting, eligibility, maintaining a fig leaf of believability over the essential principle that players must be mired in poverty instead of receiving money from boosters, etc.
Aside: as Scott Lemieux pointed out, the "non-wrongdoers will be harmed by the penalties" standard pretty much rules out all sanctions against institutions, corporations, etc.
Penn State isn't legally required to pay the fines, are they? Why can't an institution levy whatever fines it wants, and take the risk that they drive schools away?
This article is a great primer on how the NCAA got where it is, and why they think they can levy fines.
It's really bizarre the way that all US sports are run by monopoly cartels, and quite different from sports in other countries.
I am avoiding following anything about this case, as the primary emotion it inspires in me can be summed up as: "Can't they all lose?"
7 gets it right. The legal issues are reasonably interesting, but the NCAA is a contemptible antitrust-violating organization* that should have been shut down long ago and whose authority should be roundly shunned, the State of Pennsylvania is being contemptible in attempting to use legal arguments to get out of these fines, and the Paterno family and disgusting PSU die-hards are contemptible for desperately trying to defend JoePa's legacy. All should be put onto a rocket ship and flown into the sun.
*Much worse than the other major sports cartels, both in terms of the egregiousness of the violations and the harm to the "students" involved.
"Can't they all lose?"
Yep. Rooting for injuries.
I'm sorry the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania is contemptible. Fly it into the sun.
The NCAA are indeed shitbags, but I think they probably were within their rights to levy penalties of that nature. But I think in the event they screwed it up by not coming close to following their own internal procedures. Where that leaves things legally, I don't know. I have more sympathy with the narrower goals of the earlier two suits filed by the Pa. state government than this one which brings with it all of the effed-up JoePa demigod context that facilitated things in the first place.
Much worse than the other major sports cartels, both in terms of the egregiousness of the violations and the harm to the "students" involved.
What surprised me from the article was how relatively recent the NCAA's power is. TV money, the root of much evil. Philo Farnsworth, you have a lot to answer for.
Philo Farnsworth, you have a lot to answer for.
But, but ... the Red Wedding.
But, but ... the Red Wedding
I missed it! And I will concede that recently there has been some quality stuff emanating from the idiot box.
I am curious as to how Paterno's family has standing to sue at all.
14: Actually I didn't care for how they handled it all that much, but it certainly got tweeters twitting, facers booking and whatnot.
But I think in the event they screwed it up by not coming close to following their own internal procedures. Where that leaves things legally, I don't know. I have more sympathy with the narrower goals of the earlier two suits filed by the Pa. state government than this one which brings with it all of the effed-up JoePa demigod context that facilitated things in the first place.
Agreed. Suddenly the NCAA can render the Pennsylvania state government $60 million poorer? Why not $6 million? Or $600 million?
7, 8: The NCAA exploits the poor and athletic, the stupid, the cynical and the credulous, but all or substantially all of the exploited are of age. In contrast, Penn State tolerated and concealed sexual assaults upon young children, and should be ashamed even to identify itself in public, much less to make claims in the halls of justice. In closing, fuck both, but fuck Penn State to death.
Penn State is not party to any of the lawsuits.
They must be a party to some lawsuits. Or did they settle with the victims already?
Well, fuck the whole Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in its stead.
Also, I didn't think the RW was all that well done. I particularly disliked the little begging-swearing-promising aria that [character name] had right before [event]; that was a little hacky, I thought.
Scope of the comment was the three involving the NCAA.
21: It does have other universities. Maybe some parks and stuff also.
Much of the most recent Batman movie was filmed in Pennsylvania.
Suddenly the NCAA can render the Pennsylvania state government $60 million poorer?
How is this something Penn State is being forced to do? I'm just repeating question 4, but I still don't understand.
(I get that the NCAA is a monopoly, so Penn State is compelled to pay because losing their access to sports is too extreme a consequence. I guess I'm asking if that's the extent of the forcing, or if there's something I'm not getting.)
23: [Don'tsayitdon'tsayitdon'tsayitdon'tsayitdon'tsayitdon'tsayit] "Penn? That's a super-safety school!"
Damn it.
23: Cede all that to other states!
I just read in Albion's Seed about how Quakers thought college was basically pointless and that people super into learning are not to be trusted, and how that strongly shaped Pennsylvania today, so that could explain this.
It also explains the deep commitment to nonviolence.
I'm pretty sure it's just that leaving the NCAA would be worse for them. (Not just losing sports, but the decrease in alumni giving, the loss of their cut of the Big 10 network, etc.)
Then a follow-up: What makes certain monopolies illegal? Why would there be an angle to sue, just because the NCAA is exploiting their monopoly?
28: Also, shouldn't you be busy or something.
Yes, I don't think any single school would leave the NCAA. But some of the football powerhouses might jointly leave someday.
Basically 30 is right, but it's likely that the NCAA would have an argument that PSU still owed the $60 million based on last contractual commitments even if it chose to abandon the NCAA tomorrow. You'd have to know more than I do about the relevant agreements to know how good an argument that is, plus there'd be an antitrust argument . . . .
31: the antitrust and unfair competition laws.
If that answers why only certain monopolies are illegal, then I'm too dense to get it.
Confidential to 26: some people are very humorless; you'd better watch out. Cf: http://www.wikicu.com/File:NotPennState.jpg
(Handy memory device: Penn is in Phila; Penn State in State College, aka several hours from anything.)
Is it just that a monopoly is legal until it's challenged and found illegal? Because that's not generally how I think about illegal things, ie a crime is illegal whether or not you get caught.
There are laws defining which monopolies are legal and which are not. I don't know these laws, but lots of people have earned a living on litigation in the area.
For example, Major League Baseball has an official exemption from anti-trust laws.
36, 38 -- Well, as you might imagine, antitrust law is more complicated than "monopolies are illegal." In the case of the NCAA, there have been a few cases, which has left some NCAA arrangements questionable but not clearly illegal under existing law.
37: Also, every school with "State" in the name is a state school. Hence the name. Seems logical yo me.
Well, as you might imagine, antitrust law is more complicated than "monopolies are illegal."
Quit patronizing me.
I don't mean this to sound authoritative (that is, I'm not explaining the right way to think about it that you'd know if you'd only gone to law school, I'm giving you my idiosyncratic reaction), but I don't think of conduct as 'legal' or 'illegal' outside of the criminal law context (some anti-trust violations are criminal, but not simply having monopoly power). For civil matters, there's conduct that would mean you'd lose a lawsuit over it, but conceptualizing the conduct as illegal in the absence of the lawsuit doesn't work for me.
If you want to get into the weeds, you can read NCAA v Board of Regents. Looking it up its at 468 U.S. 85.
(some anti-trust violations are criminal, but not simply having monopoly power).
Anyway, this was my original question - which is which? But I'm starting to surmise that the answer is boring and not worth following up on.
46 without seeing 45, which confirms my suspicion.
It really is fairly complicated. Antitrust law has been delegated almost entirely to the courts and the rules are complex. The main difference between criminal and civil antitrust violation is generally the intent involved, not merely the arrangement itself.
To the broader point in 44:
I get what you're seeing, and it is a fair response to 38, but 38 wasn't phrased quite well enough. I was trying to say that there's a difference between a law that says "All instances of X are illegal" and a law that says "A court will bust up X on a case-by-case basis, if X becomes problematic. But otherwise X is fine."
Monopolies that are not rich enough (unions, say) are illegal. There's fine print, but that seems to be the headline every time.
29 It also explains the deep commitment to nonviolence.
Indeed, it's hard to imagine anything better than academia at driving otherwise harmless people into violent rages.
There is a surprising amount of antitrust legal maneuvering that happens locally. At least, it was surprising to me when I first learned of it.
Indeed, it's hard to imagine anything better than academia at driving otherwise harmless people into violent rages.
Spoilers on Twitter?
But, but ... the Red Wedding.
One of the most shocking scenes I've read in genre fiction. I remember my wtf reaction even better than the scene itself. Unfortunately it's all downhill after the third book. (Can someone please force an editor on GRRM?)
I don't have much interest in reading or watching Game of Thrones, but I guess I'll have to Google this damned Red Wedding thing so I'll know what everyone is talking about.
Or I could do the parsimon thing and ask what you're all talking about. But no, I think I'll Google.
I actually read the first three books, and I had to google. I think Martin had lost me enough by then that I wasn't invested enough in the characters to be memorably shocked.
It's not worth googling, really. A central character (who you won't care about if you haven't read the books) is unexpectedly murdered.
I wasn't invested enough in the characters to be memorably shocked
57.2: Now there's a laconic recounting. Historical precedent was the Black Dinner.
I actually read the first three books, and I had to google. I think Martin had lost me enough by then that I wasn't invested enough in the characters to be memorably shocked.
Conclusive proof that LB is a heartless monster.
That said, I couldn't stop giggling as I read this curated Twitter feed of fans losing their shit over the episode: Red Wedding Tears.
I read the first three one after another and loved them, found the second a chaotic sprawl, and didn't quite manage to force myself to the end of the fifth. The shock wasn't so much because of my investment in the characters but the scale of the butchery of the closest thing we get to 'good guys' in those novels. But since even the good guys are rather sanctimonious, hypocritical, out of their depth pricks I didn't feel sad. And it gave us evil zombie good guys (so to speak).
60.last: I just had that in my paste buffer to post here. I found the scene very effective in the book (as I mentioned less so in the show, but still disturbing) and I found it marginally haunted my subsequent reading of the series as my inner primitive christian 10-year old yearned for the comeuppance.
To signal to my family that I am watching GoT in full self-aware ironic detachment mode I alternately refer to it as Game of Assholes and Game of Bloodthisrty Morons.
Because I'm a feminist...
60. Thanks for the link. I've been waiting for this reaction ever since HBO greenlighted the show. Though a couple of those tweets seem to be sarcastic comments on the freakout.
We just started GoT a couple weeks ago. My son will be setting it up shortly, but he just told us that he doesn't want to go back to college next fall -- it's totally pointless, he says -- but instead take a year off to make money and travel around the world. So, it'll be a little chilly here for a bit.
Meanwhile, the SC opinion Halford mentioned above isn't boring at all. I had no idea of the pioneering role Penn played in televised college football.
But, heebie, if you're not going to read it, I'll just tell you this: the antitrust laws only forbid unreasonable restraints of trade. Not the reasonable ones.
As long as we're talking about TV, I just heard about this show: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fosters_(2013_TV_series)
||
I think I might be entering a new stage in my transformation into the grumpy, crazy old radical guys who run the ancient leftwing bookstore. I haven't been kicked out of the CP or anything, but I am pretty disgusted with just about all of the "serious" radicals I know. What happens if I live for another 20 or 30 years in this town? Do I keep going back and getting disgusted and going back etc.? I can imagine that happening, but it seems awfully depressing. The alternative of just hovering around the edges being continually pissed off at a low level doesn't seem much better. And yet, turning my back on it all completely seems like something I'd never have the willpower to carry out. I have some alternatives, I guess, but nothing seems to make sense. Has anyone else read Jumping the Line? I'm not about to name names (kinda the opposite situation), but I'm feeling a lot like Herrick.
I get to hang out with one of my favorite babies (toddler now, really) tomorrow though, so that is good.
||>
just hovering around the edges being continually pissed off at a low level
That's what I've been doing at a couple of conferences lately.
65.1: One of the older guys in my church growing up spent his college years in the early 1930s throwing dance parties with a friend, and by the time they graduated, they had saved enough money to buy a Ford roadster and spend a year driving around Europe. YMMV, I guess, but I always thought that was an inspiring story.
65: I had no idea of the pioneering role Penn played in televised college football.
Interesting, neither did I. It was prior to the formation of the Ivy League (although there was a group agreement on football starting after WWII).
but instead take a year off to make money and travel around the world.
Doesn't sound like such a bad idea. This is the right moment in his life to do that. He can happily travel on a shoestring budget and taking a year off from college shouldn't be a big deal, he'll just graduate a year later.
Or two years later if he finds really great drugs.
Hash is hash is hash - no different in or out of college.
I'm actually ok with it -- he's never liked school, ever. His mom is kind of flipping out. Still wondering how she got daydreaming procrastinators for kids.
67: Have you asked the old guys? Do you need a safe useful domain like a bookstore?
Damnit, couldn't you fucking nerds do the spoilers in a specially-designated thread?
That seems like a pretty weaksauce spoiler.
75: Oh, I'll always be welcome over there. And in a lot of other places too. Many of my radical friends did NOT turn into assholes 4 months ago. I just wonder if there's any way off the karmic wheel of disgust with, and renewed interest in, activism.
66: I watched, unsurprisingly, and thought it was basically well-done and accurate enough on all fronts. Based on the first episode, I was going to recommend it to Di Kotimy as a potential watching-with-daughter show because it has the teen drama of a Degrassi but with added LGBT content. (And that's not fair since Degrassi is basically the queerest teen show ever, but The Fosters may be close to tying it after one episode.)
82: we've been seeing the commercials and I've definitely been interested in checking it out. At least in part because it made me think of you and your fostering experiences.
81: Was that the question form that `famously expects a negative'? You can't get off the karmic wheel if you're committed to staying on it to help others. I'm very sorry to read of the death of your colleague.
It isn't the suit mentioned in the OP, but I don't know how it is different conceptually. It looks like the NCAA won round 1.
