ESPN Insider says PSU verbals are looking at options amid the turmoil at Penn State. Most of the BCS schools have their classes filled at this point. Could we see a school like Temple or even Ohio step in and steal a few guys who don't want to deal with the uncertainty. Penn State could get hit with a lack of institutional control from the NCAA once the criminal investigation is finished. The Board of Trustees may decide to deemphasize  football with the next coaching hire.

I wouldn't think you'd see anyone change. No one accepting a verbal to PSU probably expected that they would have the same coach by the time they finished anyway.

The NCAA has no jurisdiction in the PSU mess. 

SonnyDrysdale wrote:expand_more

The NCAA has no jurisdiction in the PSU mess. 

Others are seeing it differently:

Mac Engel

Key Quote: When a president of the university has to resign over a scandal involving the athletic department it is not a lack of institutional control. This is a collapse of institutional control.

Infamous Bleacher Report

Key Quote: Now, thanks to the PSU trustees, Penn State can at least hope for a lighter sentence, though the NCAA still will—and should—throw the book at the Nittany Lions' program.

The Daily Caller

Key Quote:  When it comes to NCAA investigations of big-time athletics, the four words no university president wants to hear are “loss of institutional control.” And while the NCAA most often simply deals with situations where schools are covering up violations of NCAA rules, we’ve rarely had a situation where a member institution was faced with charges of actual criminal malfeasance. If there’s any school where there’s been a loss of institutional control — in addition to a complete abdication of moral responsibility — it’s Penn State. In short, NCAA President Mark Emmert is going to be under considerable pressure to come down hard on the school. In the end, he may have no choice but to unleash the dreaded “death penalty,” the same punishment that was meted out to SMU’s football program in the late 1980s.

I'm not saying exactly where I would come down on this matter; I'm just saying that this subject is one that's open for debate.

Come back with your brilliant opinions when you can spell break.

Fine, Mr. It-would-have-been-inappropriate-for-Paterno-to-follow-up.

Or dump Clorox on it from a helicopter.

Lack of Institutional control was designed to enforce amateurism not criminal prosecution. Though if you ask the question at this point does Penn State have institutional control what can you respond with? You can't ask the AD he's on trial. By deduction the answer is no because the compliance team for the athletic department is going through criminal prosecution. Prosecution not for personal crimes they committed but for crimes occurring under their athletic leadership. With the NCAA public opinion is an important factor as to how they act on the situation and its looking pretty ugly. 

I agree. The NCAA has a specific set of rules. The NCAA has punishments to use when those rules are broken. Before anyone suggest that the NCAA is going to use enforcement power, it would be useful if they would also cite the specific NCAA rule that has been broken. I'm not an expert on them, so I have no idea if there are any NCAA rules that would cover this. I would hate to think that anyone here would support any jurisdiction arbitrarily using enforcement powers without some specific rule being broken.

Does Penn State gain a recruiting advantage for having a child rapist in the football office?

Southen's point is simple. We each exist under many different legal authorities, with different sets of rules. There are city, county, state, and federal statutes. There are a wide variety of agency rules, such as EPA, SEC, OSHA, etc. We may have occupational rules, for example from a Bar Association, if you are a lawyer. We might also have specific company rules. With each set of rules there is an enforcement power that enforces those rules, and punishments they are authorized to hand out. One of the core premises of our legal system is predictability, and one thing specifically forbidden is ex post facto changes - where the rules are changed after the fact.

If there are NCAA rules in place that apply to this case, they should be applied. If there aren't existing rules that apply, then the NCAA has no business creating new ones after the facts are in. Since I don't know what NCAA rules are out there, I have no idea if they should be taking action, or not. All I'm saying is, if you think they should be taking action, you should be citing what rule you think was broken. It isn't constructive to say "oh, yeah, give them the death penalty" without supplying a basis, any more than it would be to say "arrest all the Occupy Wall Street people", without supplying what the basis would be for such an arrest.

That's exactly what they should do - "determine whether Association bylaws have been violated and act accordingly."

http://ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/NCAA/Enforcement/Resources/FAQ

The NCAA bylaws deal with recruiting and amateurism. They do not enforce laws. That is for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania to enforce. Loss of institutional control deals with lack of compliance with NCAA rules. The NCAA has no rules against child molestation or failure to act in legal situations. The death penalty is only for repeat offenders with major violations.