Penn State to Be Hit With Staggering Penalties From Sandusky Scandal
I strongly disagree with any penalties levied against the Penn State football problem you know why?
The current players, staff and others had absolutely nothing to do with the Sandusky scandal, but they are the ones who are going to be punished.
The people who should be punished are the administrators or anyone involved in the cover up. Those are the people who should be losing jobs or in some cases prosecuted for their failures to not turn in Sandusky.
Sandusky was not a member of the Penn State football staff for more than a decade, but these administrators allowed him to roam the campus and hang around.
I feel terrible sorry for the members of the Penn State football team.
The NCAA is set to levy the first presidential sanctioning in the association’s history on Monday when it will impose what one source termed “significant” and “staggering” penalties against the Nittany Lions’ football program in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky scandal, Yahoo! Sports has learned.
Two sources with knowledge of the Penn State penalties said NCAA president Mark Emmert will announce Monday that he is personally sanctioning Penn State after receiving approval from the association’s Division I Board of directors, which is comprised of 22 college presidents and chancellors. One source told Yahoo! Sports Emmert’s sanctions will include a “multiple-year” bowl ban and “crippling” scholarship losses.
The move will mark a first in NCAA history, in which the president will invoke a defense of the NCAA’s constitution as part of his reasoning for taking the unprecedented steps. The moment is groundbreaking in that Emmert is circumventing typical NCAA process and moving forward without an investigation by his enforcement staff. However, Emmert is expected to detail that the action is backed by a special provision allowing such a step if he receives approval from the NCAA’s board of directors. A source told Y! Sports the NCAA is prepared to defend the lack of an investigation by focusing on the Freeh Report, and Emmert’s determination that the report provided actionable evidence.