Non-horrible Sandusky thread to discuss PSU sanctions (1 Viewer)

[AAABatteries]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

 

[GDogg]

The free transfer is enormous

If that hadn't been included I would have had a problem with the sanctions. But is is, and I don't.

It's completely pointless. It's way too close to the season for players to transfer. If some are able, they'll still be at a huge disadvantage compared to players already there. I don't like the NCAA, but I wouldn't have had as big of a problem with this punishment if it had been announced in February and schools were told they had full rights to recruit any PSU players. That's not the case though.

It doesn't require them to transfer. It just removes penalties for them doing so if they wish. Players can make the best decisions for themselves without sanction. The players are in their late teens and early 20's. This isn't the first adversity they'll hit in life and it won't be the last. It's not up to the NCAA to protect them like precious snowflakes.

Good to know you don't give a damn about them. I do. I think college players already get a very raw deal without having to deal with PR stunts like this.

So is the NCAA just never supposed to sanction a school for any wrongdoing because it will have an adverse affect on a college player's playing career at the sanctioned school?I feel badly for the players. They had nothing to do with any of this. But, the alternative is simply letting schools do whatever they want with little to no repercussions.

The transfer rules for Penn St.'s players softens the blow as much as they can. They are giving the players a choice. Stay and play for Penn St. and probably get your butts kicked week in and week out or transfer to any school that also wants you without any eligibility issues. It's not ideal for the players, but it's the best they could hope for.

How about deferring the punishments that affect players until next season? Also tell schools that, as soon as the season is over they are free to recruit any PSU players.

Don't they all? The players don't have to transfer this season. They can transfer whenever they want. They simply need to have eligibility left.

Are you sure? I thought the deal was they could transfer now and play immediately. I didn't see where they could wait a season and transfer without having to sit.

Yes. Well, in reading it, that's not super clear what I wrote (sorry about that). They can transfer now or after the 2012 season. They don't need to decide to do it this year. Incoming freshman are released from their letters of intent and are free to take 5 more official visits and transfer immediately.

 

[GDogg]

This was too huge of a scandal for the NCAA to act just on past precedent. They couldn't let PSU get off because the NCAA hadn't put in rules against this kind of stuff. No one would have predicted something like this could happen.

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

The NCAA has no obligation to provide due process.

It does unless the school bends over like PSU did.

Link?No it doesn't. The NCAA is not a governmental actor.

You disagree with the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Tarkanian?

 

[Christo]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

 

[fatness]

This was too huge of a scandal for the NCAA to act just on past precedent. They couldn't let PSU get off because the NCAA hadn't put in rules against this kind of stuff. No one would have predicted something like this could happen.

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

I'm not opposed to due process and neither are you. I'm opposed to using "the existence of the court system" as an excuse to leave Penn State unsanctioned for their behavior.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

This was too huge of a scandal for the NCAA to act just on past precedent. They couldn't let PSU get off because the NCAA hadn't put in rules against this kind of stuff. No one would have predicted something like this could happen.

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

The NCAA has no obligation to provide due process.

Im referring to the apparent impatience with the court system above.

 

[fatness]

The people who did this are being punished by the courts and legal system far worse than anything the NCAA can do.

How about you list all the people who've been punished by the courts and legal system so far? In fact, I'll do it for you:

1. Jerry Sandusky

end list

How about you list all the people who've been punished for the coverup by the courts and legal system so far? I'll do that one for you also:

nobody

Save your post and get back to us when Curley & Schultz are prosecuted and maybe more. What axe do you have to grind in this anyway?

I disagreed with what renesauz posted. Did you miss that?

 

[AAABatteries]

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

Ok - thanks. Seems like a lot of smart people fall on both sides of this debate - it doesn't really matter to me personally. I do think that one of the problems here was that PSU let Paterno get to be too powerful but I'm not sure how you police something like that or whether it should be. I'm also not sure if they should have vacated the wins but I do think it is fitting that Paterno is no longer at the top of the wins list.

 

[fatness]

My opinions on this:1) Penalties by NCAA were extremely harsh, but fair. 2) I honestly can't understand people saying things like "it wasn't enough" or even "it wasn't nearly enough". I'd hate to be that big of an #######. 3) Penalties by B1G were harsh, but fair. 4) Paterno family: Shut. The. ####. Up. 5) Crazy PSU fans/alums: Shut. The. ####. Up. 6) Former PSU players still defending Paterno (I'm looking at you Michael Robinson): Shut. The. ####. Up. 7) Normal PSU fans/alums: Now is the time to support the university through this. We have a great meaning coach in Bill O'Brien. We'll have to wait years to fairly see if he is a great football coach but I like the way he acts during this. Let's keep going to games and supporting the team. They did nothing wrong. Let's keep supporting the students. They did nothing wrong. Let's keep supporting the local businesses. They did nothing wrong. And most importantly, let's support child abuse organizations as much as we do our team. And let's celebrate when we inevitably knock off some team much better than us 3-4 years from now (Please let it be Pitt in 2016). 8) We Are!

If your views aren't already the views of the majority of the Penn State community, they soon will be. I've checked a Penn State message board from time to time, and today amongst all the "Doom" and "Sue Everyone" topics were suddenly a number of topics and posts from people who hadn't posted much in the Paterno/Sandusky/Freeh/NCAA topics before, echoing your sentiments. I think the PSU community will come through this just fine. People like you aren't going to bail on the school, the money won't run out, football games will be played, and there will be an ever-smaller group on the sidelines holding Paterno blameless and wanting to sue and investigate everyone "until the truth comes out."Good post by the way.

 

[Christo]

This was too huge of a scandal for the NCAA to act just on past precedent. They couldn't let PSU get off because the NCAA hadn't put in rules against this kind of stuff. No one would have predicted something like this could happen.

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

The NCAA has no obligation to provide due process.

It does unless the school bends over like PSU did.

Link?No it doesn't. The NCAA is not a governmental actor.

You disagree with the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Tarkanian?

No. But that case is not on point. The issue there was whether the NCAA was subject to the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment which, in turn, subjected the NCAA to sanctions under Section 1983. Tark made the argument that because UNLV cooperated with the NCAA during its investigation and UNLV is a state agency the NCAA became a state actor when it sanctioned him. The SCOTUS found that UNLV's acceptance of the sanctions did not make the NCAA a state actor.Tark did not claim that he was denied due process under NCAA rules.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

8) We Are!

Screwed.

Married with two young kids, so no, I'm really not.

- you said 'We' and I'm talking about PSU football

Well in that case you're right.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

My opinions on this:

1) Penalties by NCAA were extremely harsh, but fair.

2) I honestly can't understand people saying things like "it wasn't enough" or even "it wasn't nearly enough". I'd hate to be that big of an #######.

3) Penalties by B1G were harsh, but fair.

4) Paterno family: Shut. The. ####. Up.

5) Crazy PSU fans/alums: Shut. The. ####. Up.

6) Former PSU players still defending Paterno (I'm looking at you Michael Robinson): Shut. The. ####. Up.

7) Normal PSU fans/alums: Now is the time to support the university through this. We have a great meaning coach in Bill O'Brien. We'll have to wait years to fairly see if he is a great football coach but I like the way he acts during this. Let's keep going to games and supporting the team. They did nothing wrong. Let's keep supporting the students. They did nothing wrong. Let's keep supporting the local businesses. They did nothing wrong. And most importantly, let's support child abuse organizations as much as we do our team. And let's celebrate when we inevitably knock off some team much better than us 3-4 years from now (Please let it be Pitt in 2016).

8) We Are!

If your views aren't already the views of the majority of the Penn State community, they soon will be. I've checked a Penn State message board from time to time, and today amongst all the "Doom" and "Sue Everyone" topics were suddenly a number of topics and posts from people who hadn't posted much in the Paterno/Sandusky/Freeh/NCAA topics before, echoing your sentiments.

I think the PSU community will come through this just fine. People like you aren't going to bail on the school, the money won't run out, football games will be played, and there will be an ever-smaller group on the sidelines holding Paterno blameless and wanting to sue and investigate everyone "until the truth comes out."

Good post by the way.

Thanks. Sorry if I was a jackass to you earlier in the thread. It's difficult to stay even keel sometimes but I try.

 

[renesauz]

I don't have the heart to try to catch up on the PSU bashing that's occured since I left earlier, but I do want to make one other point before I sign off for the night.

Earlier we debated whether or not PSU gained any kind of competitive advantage by not outing Sandusky in 2000 (or 98, depending on your perspective). I argued that they didn't, many argued that the program would have suffered, so yes..they did.

It occured to me a little while ago that we we arguing the wrong thing. The question is...Did Penn State gain an unfair advantage? The answer is unequivicably...NO!!! All the arguments presented earlier, even if we were to accept them, argue that Penn State gained nothing, but avoided gaining a DISADVANTAGE.

This isn't simple semantics...it's actually a pretty big difference. If we accept the argument that outing Sandusky in 2000 would have created a recruiting disadvantage, than we still have to answer the other part of the argument...would that disadvantage have been FAIR? Assuming the people in charge did the right thing....no, it would not have been. Doing the right thing on something like this would have never been punished, particulalry since it created no advantage. Oddly enough, the disadvantage which would have been unfair in 2000 is fair now...but would have existed now whether the NCAA levied sanctions or not.

Now....as to punishing the culture...if the goal is truly to change the culture of college football, hamstringing a big time program is the wrong way to do it, because it can't possibly work. The problem of football's power in university life is NOT unique to PSU (Paterno's power might have been, but not the PROGRAM'S power). It is pervasive to all of the NCAA. It isn't caused because people thought Paterno could do no wrong (a premise which had proven mostly true for over 50 years). It's caused by the fact that major universities depend on the millions of dollars generated by football. BY the tens of millions of fans of big programs all over the country. By the College Football Gameday specials we watch. By the MILLIONS paid to the universities and conferances for Bowl games.

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

I get the outrage. I really do. I realize I'm in the minority, but I've long believed the NCAA to be a hypocritical entity whose punishments rarely made sense. I might not have been as vocal about it, but I would have been just as much against this had it happened at Ohio State, or Alabama, or Texas. I understand sanctions designed to provide a deterance...at least the other idiotic sanctions by the NCAA have generally done such a thing. But as I said earlier...there is no need for deterrance here. Everybody gets it, everybody is disgusted by it. The odds of a similar occurance ever happening again would have been no higher had the NCAA done nothing. This wasn't about deterance, but about punishment. Revenge. Bloodlust. And the ones most deserving of it aren't hurt one bit.

 

[culdeus]

Question about timing:The scholarship number isnt reduced this season because it's too late, correct? But the bowl ban starts this season? So the first year of bowl eligibility they still will be short scholarships, right?

They won't see a bowl until the 2nd term of the Romney administration is over.

 

[GDogg]

This was too huge of a scandal for the NCAA to act just on past precedent. They couldn't let PSU get off because the NCAA hadn't put in rules against this kind of stuff. No one would have predicted something like this could happen.

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

The NCAA has no obligation to provide due process.

It does unless the school bends over like PSU did.

Link?No it doesn't. The NCAA is not a governmental actor.

You disagree with the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Tarkanian?

No. But that case is not on point. The issue there was whether the NCAA was subject to the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment which, in turn, subjected the NCAA to sanctions under Section 1983. Tark made the argument that because UNLV cooperated with the NCAA during its investigation and UNLV is a state agency the NCAA became a state actor when it sanctioned him. The SCOTUS found that UNLV's acceptance of the sanctions did not make the NCAA a state actor.Tark did not claim that he was denied due process under NCAA rules.

Sure, it's factually distinguishable, but it is one of the many cases that stand for the point that the NCAA is not a state actor, which is required for due process violations. In each and every case that this issue has come before the courts, the NCAA has been held to not be a state actor. Do you have a link to one that says they are?Don't take this to mean I agree with it. I think they should be held to be a state actor for numerous reasons.

 

[CrossEyed]

Question about timing:The scholarship number isnt reduced this season because it's too late, correct? But the bowl ban starts this season? So the first year of bowl eligibility they still will be short scholarships, right?

They won't see a bowl until the 2nd term of the Romney administration is over.

Yeah, the bowl drought will certainly exceed the penalty phase.

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

I don't have the heart to try to catch up on the PSU bashing that's occured since I left earlier, but I do want to make one other point before I sign off for the night.

Earlier we debated whether or not PSU gained any kind of competitive advantage by not outing Sandusky in 2000 (or 98, depending on your perspective). I argued that they didn't, many argued that the program would have suffered, so yes..they did.

It occured to me a little while ago that we we arguing the wrong thing. The question is...Did Penn State gain an unfair advantage? The answer is unequivicably...NO!!! All the arguments presented earlier, even if we were to accept them, argue that Penn State gained nothing, but avoided gaining a DISADVANTAGE.

This isn't simple semantics...it's actually a pretty big difference. If we accept the argument that outing Sandusky in 2000 would have created a recruiting disadvantage, than we still have to answer the other part of the argument...would that disadvantage have been FAIR? Assuming the people in charge did the right thing....no, it would not have been. Doing the right thing on something like this would have never been punished, particulalry since it created no advantage. Oddly enough, the disadvantage which would have been unfair in 2000 is fair now...but would have existed now whether the NCAA levied sanctions or not.

Now....as to punishing the culture...if the goal is truly to change the culture of college football, hamstringing a big time program is the wrong way to do it, because it can't possibly work. The problem of football's power in university life is NOT unique to PSU (Paterno's power might have been, but not the PROGRAM'S power). It is pervasive to all of the NCAA. It isn't caused because people thought Paterno could do no wrong (a premise which had proven mostly true for over 50 years). It's caused by the fact that major universities depend on the millions of dollars generated by football. BY the tens of millions of fans of big programs all over the country. By the College Football Gameday specials we watch. By the MILLIONS paid to the universities and conferances for Bowl games.

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

I get the outrage. I really do. I realize I'm in the minority, but I've long believed the NCAA to be a hypocritical entity whose punishments rarely made sense. I might not have been as vocal about it, but I would have been just as much against this had it happened at Ohio State, or Alabama, or Texas. I understand sanctions designed to provide a deterance...at least the other idiotic sanctions by the NCAA have generally done such a thing. But as I said earlier...there is no need for deterrance here. Everybody gets it, everybody is disgusted by it. The odds of a similar occurance ever happening again would have been no higher had the NCAA done nothing. This wasn't about deterance, but about punishment. Revenge. Bloodlust. And the ones most deserving of it aren't hurt one bit.

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. I disagree that these penalties today were primarily about Paterno, football or even Sandusky. In my mind this specific pot of penalties is about PSU, as represented by the administration, covering up major crimes involving children in a systematic way over many years. This is about the cover up.

 

[fatness]

Penn State has to come up with $60 million during the next five years — at least $12 million a year — to pay the fine imposed on it by the NCAA on Monday. The NCAA specifically said Penn State can’t take the money from other sports programs the university offers to pay this fine. It said it also can’t take it from academics. What’s more, the university’s President Rodney Erickson has pledged not to use any of its state funding, which amounts to $214 million this year, or tuition money to pay for expenses arising from the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

Reacting to the sanctions Monday, Gov. Tom Corbett made a point of reminding Erickson of that pledge. “I also want assurance from Penn State that no taxpayer dollars will be used to pay the $60 million fine imposed on the university,” Corbett said.

So that leads to the questions: Where will the money come from? And how will the public know the source, given the limited requirements that the state’s open-records law places on Penn State?

It took Penn State a few hours on Monday to find the answer to the first question before saying it will use its athletics reserve fund and capital maintenance budget and borrow money internally to pay the fine, which will be directed to preventing child abuse.

As for the second question, if Penn State chooses to live by the letter of the law, the public will have to take the university at its word that those are the sources of the money. The state’s Right to Know Law does not require any further transparency from Penn State beyond providing its Internal Revenue Service 990 form and a list of the 25 highest-paid employees each year. “The current law, the way it’s written, makes it very difficult for the public to determine where this money will be coming from, whether it’s taxpayer money, whether it’s donations from alumni. We don’t have access to that information under the current law,” said Melissa Melewsky, media law counsel for the Pennsylvania Newspaper Association.

link

 

[fatness]

Thanks. Sorry if I was a jackass to you earlier in the thread. It's difficult to stay even keel sometimes but I try.

Don't worry about it.

 

[urbanhack]

Sandusky vs. Libor

 

[Christo]

If the NCAA hadn't acted, how would that mean that PSU "got off?" They canned their President and AD -- both may be in prison this time next year -- and the university is facing tens of millions of dollars in civil liability. Reading these threads, it's as if people aren't even aware of the existence of the courts.

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

God forbid there is due process.

The NCAA has no obligation to provide due process.

It does unless the school bends over like PSU did.

Link?No it doesn't. The NCAA is not a governmental actor.

You disagree with the Supreme Court in NCAA v. Tarkanian?

No. But that case is not on point. The issue there was whether the NCAA was subject to the due process requirements of the 14th Amendment which, in turn, subjected the NCAA to sanctions under Section 1983. Tark made the argument that because UNLV cooperated with the NCAA during its investigation and UNLV is a state agency the NCAA became a state actor when it sanctioned him. The SCOTUS found that UNLV's acceptance of the sanctions did not make the NCAA a state actor.Tark did not claim that he was denied due process under NCAA rules.

Sure, it's factually distinguishable, but it is one of the many cases that stand for the point that the NCAA is not a state actor, which is required for due process violations. In each and every case that this issue has come before the courts, the NCAA has been held to not be a state actor. Do you have a link to one that says they are?Don't take this to mean I agree with it. I think they should be held to be a state actor for numerous reasons.

You clearly do not understand the issue. Due process is broader than just due process under the US or State constitutions. Due process is also required when an organization tries to sanction one of its members.

 

[Christo]

I don't have the heart to try to catch up on the PSU bashing that's occured since I left earlier, but I do want to make one other point before I sign off for the night.

Earlier we debated whether or not PSU gained any kind of competitive advantage by not outing Sandusky in 2000 (or 98, depending on your perspective). I argued that they didn't, many argued that the program would have suffered, so yes..they did.

It occured to me a little while ago that we we arguing the wrong thing. The question is...Did Penn State gain an unfair advantage? The answer is unequivicably...NO!!! All the arguments presented earlier, even if we were to accept them, argue that Penn State gained nothing, but avoided gaining a DISADVANTAGE.

This isn't simple semantics...it's actually a pretty big difference. If we accept the argument that outing Sandusky in 2000 would have created a recruiting disadvantage, than we still have to answer the other part of the argument...would that disadvantage have been FAIR? Assuming the people in charge did the right thing....no, it would not have been. Doing the right thing on something like this would have never been punished, particulalry since it created no advantage. Oddly enough, the disadvantage which would have been unfair in 2000 is fair now...but would have existed now whether the NCAA levied sanctions or not.

Now....as to punishing the culture...if the goal is truly to change the culture of college football, hamstringing a big time program is the wrong way to do it, because it can't possibly work. The problem of football's power in university life is NOT unique to PSU (Paterno's power might have been, but not the PROGRAM'S power). It is pervasive to all of the NCAA. It isn't caused because people thought Paterno could do no wrong (a premise which had proven mostly true for over 50 years). It's caused by the fact that major universities depend on the millions of dollars generated by football. BY the tens of millions of fans of big programs all over the country. By the College Football Gameday specials we watch. By the MILLIONS paid to the universities and conferances for Bowl games.

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

I get the outrage. I really do. I realize I'm in the minority, but I've long believed the NCAA to be a hypocritical entity whose punishments rarely made sense. I might not have been as vocal about it, but I would have been just as much against this had it happened at Ohio State, or Alabama, or Texas. I understand sanctions designed to provide a deterance...at least the other idiotic sanctions by the NCAA have generally done such a thing. But as I said earlier...there is no need for deterrance here. Everybody gets it, everybody is disgusted by it. The odds of a similar occurance ever happening again would have been no higher had the NCAA done nothing. This wasn't about deterance, but about punishment. Revenge. Bloodlust. And the ones most deserving of it aren't hurt one bit.

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. I disagree that these penalties today were primarily about Paterno, football or even Sandusky. In my mind this specific pot of penalties is about PSU, as represented by the administration, covering up major crimes involving children in a systematic way over many years. This is about the cover up.

The penalties today were about a power grab by the NCAA.

 

[Enraged Nerfball]

I don't have the heart to try to catch up on the PSU bashing that's occured since I left earlier, but I do want to make one other point before I sign off for the night.

Earlier we debated whether or not PSU gained any kind of competitive advantage by not outing Sandusky in 2000 (or 98, depending on your perspective). I argued that they didn't, many argued that the program would have suffered, so yes..they did.

It occured to me a little while ago that we we arguing the wrong thing. The question is...Did Penn State gain an unfair advantage? The answer is unequivicably...NO!!! All the arguments presented earlier, even if we were to accept them, argue that Penn State gained nothing, but avoided gaining a DISADVANTAGE.

This isn't simple semantics...it's actually a pretty big difference. If we accept the argument that outing Sandusky in 2000 would have created a recruiting disadvantage, than we still have to answer the other part of the argument...would that disadvantage have been FAIR? Assuming the people in charge did the right thing....no, it would not have been. Doing the right thing on something like this would have never been punished, particulalry since it created no advantage. Oddly enough, the disadvantage which would have been unfair in 2000 is fair now...but would have existed now whether the NCAA levied sanctions or not.

Now....as to punishing the culture...if the goal is truly to change the culture of college football, hamstringing a big time program is the wrong way to do it, because it can't possibly work. The problem of football's power in university life is NOT unique to PSU (Paterno's power might have been, but not the PROGRAM'S power). It is pervasive to all of the NCAA. It isn't caused because people thought Paterno could do no wrong (a premise which had proven mostly true for over 50 years). It's caused by the fact that major universities depend on the millions of dollars generated by football. BY the tens of millions of fans of big programs all over the country. By the College Football Gameday specials we watch. By the MILLIONS paid to the universities and conferances for Bowl games.

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

I get the outrage. I really do. I realize I'm in the minority, but I've long believed the NCAA to be a hypocritical entity whose punishments rarely made sense. I might not have been as vocal about it, but I would have been just as much against this had it happened at Ohio State, or Alabama, or Texas. I understand sanctions designed to provide a deterance...at least the other idiotic sanctions by the NCAA have generally done such a thing. But as I said earlier...there is no need for deterrance here. Everybody gets it, everybody is disgusted by it. The odds of a similar occurance ever happening again would have been no higher had the NCAA done nothing. This wasn't about deterance, but about punishment. Revenge. Bloodlust. And the ones most deserving of it aren't hurt one bit.

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. I disagree that these penalties today were primarily about Paterno, football or even Sandusky. In my mind this specific pot of penalties is about PSU, as represented by the administration, covering up major crimes involving children in a systematic way over many years. This is about the cover up.

The penalties today were about a power grab by the NCAA.

Sure, maybe in a Alexander Haig "I'm in charge" kind of way. Just curious, to what end? What do they get from this other than what I've suggested, which is just them beating their chest?

 

[Shrugs]

How are these in any way absurd? If anything, these are wholly and completely inadequate and the NCAA really chickened out here.

USC got basically 3 years of probation (3 years of reduced scholarships, 2 year post season ban) for putting an athlete's parents up in a nice house. 11 years of covering up child rape so you could go on making money is worth one more year than that? What a joke.

USC violated NCAA rules and therefore got punished by the NCAA. PSU did not actually violate any NCAA rules. That's why some of us think it's absurd that they're facing NCAA sanctions.

Wow, still so much misunderstanding. USC did not put an athlete's parents up in a nice house. A wannabe agent with no connection to USC put Reggie Bush's parents up in a nice house in San Diego, about 120 miles from USC. These benefits given to Bush's family in no way helped USC. They weren't benefits given for Bush to come to USC. In fact, they were benefits given for Bush to leave USC. Despite not violating NCAA rules, USC was punished for not knowing what Bush's family was receiving from people with no connection to the university 120 miles away.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

How are these in any way absurd? If anything, these are wholly and completely inadequate and the NCAA really chickened out here.

USC got basically 3 years of probation (3 years of reduced scholarships, 2 year post season ban) for putting an athlete's parents up in a nice house. 11 years of covering up child rape so you could go on making money is worth one more year than that? What a joke.

USC violated NCAA rules and therefore got punished by the NCAA. PSU did not actually violate any NCAA rules. That's why some of us think it's absurd that they're facing NCAA sanctions.

Wow, still so much misunderstanding. USC did not put an athlete's parents up in a nice house. A wannabe agent with no connection to USC put Reggie Bush's parents up in a nice house in San Diego, about 120 miles from USC. These benefits given to Bush's family in no way helped USC. They weren't benefits given for Bush to come to USC. In fact, they were benefits given for Bush to leave USC. Despite not violating NCAA rules, USC was punished for not knowing what Bush's family was receiving from people with no connection to the university 120 miles away.

I have to admit that I'm not familiar with the details of the Reggie Bush case -- I didn't follow it at the time and haven't since. My point, though, is that having a player receive payment for his services goes directly to the heart of the NCAA's mission of promoting amatuerism and a level playing field for recruiting. The Sandusky scandal is completely different and unrelated.

 

[johnnycakes]

I don't have the heart to try to catch up on the PSU bashing that's occured since I left earlier, but I do want to make one other point before I sign off for the night.

Earlier we debated whether or not PSU gained any kind of competitive advantage by not outing Sandusky in 2000 (or 98, depending on your perspective). I argued that they didn't, many argued that the program would have suffered, so yes..they did.

It occured to me a little while ago that we we arguing the wrong thing. The question is...Did Penn State gain an unfair advantage? The answer is unequivicably...NO!!! All the arguments presented earlier, even if we were to accept them, argue that Penn State gained nothing, but avoided gaining a DISADVANTAGE.

This isn't simple semantics...it's actually a pretty big difference. If we accept the argument that outing Sandusky in 2000 would have created a recruiting disadvantage, than we still have to answer the other part of the argument...would that disadvantage have been FAIR? Assuming the people in charge did the right thing....no, it would not have been. Doing the right thing on something like this would have never been punished, particulalry since it created no advantage. Oddly enough, the disadvantage which would have been unfair in 2000 is fair now...but would have existed now whether the NCAA levied sanctions or not.

Now....as to punishing the culture...if the goal is truly to change the culture of college football, hamstringing a big time program is the wrong way to do it, because it can't possibly work. The problem of football's power in university life is NOT unique to PSU (Paterno's power might have been, but not the PROGRAM'S power). It is pervasive to all of the NCAA. It isn't caused because people thought Paterno could do no wrong (a premise which had proven mostly true for over 50 years). It's caused by the fact that major universities depend on the millions of dollars generated by football. BY the tens of millions of fans of big programs all over the country. By the College Football Gameday specials we watch. By the MILLIONS paid to the universities and conferances for Bowl games.

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

I get the outrage. I really do. I realize I'm in the minority, but I've long believed the NCAA to be a hypocritical entity whose punishments rarely made sense. I might not have been as vocal about it, but I would have been just as much against this had it happened at Ohio State, or Alabama, or Texas. I understand sanctions designed to provide a deterance...at least the other idiotic sanctions by the NCAA have generally done such a thing. But as I said earlier...there is no need for deterrance here. Everybody gets it, everybody is disgusted by it. The odds of a similar occurance ever happening again would have been no higher had the NCAA done nothing. This wasn't about deterance, but about punishment. Revenge. Bloodlust. And the ones most deserving of it aren't hurt one bit.

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. I disagree that these penalties today were primarily about Paterno, football or even Sandusky. In my mind this specific pot of penalties is about PSU, as represented by the administration, covering up major crimes involving children in a systematic way over many years. This is about the cover up.

The penalties today were about a power grab by the NCAA.

When they write that check for $60 Million, should they write "BS Power Grab" on the memo line?

 

[cheese]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

The fact that you are saying what the NCAA is doing probably wouldn't hold up in court is even more proof that the NCAA does in fact have tons of power. If they didn't, Penn State would just say no we're not doing anything you say or take them to court. They will do neither because the NCAA has a lot of power, including the power to keep this out of the courts.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

...My point, though, is that having a player receive payment for his services goes directly to the heart of the NCAA's mission of promoting amatuerism and a level playing field for recruiting. ...

Well if that was really the NCAA's mission you might have a point. The little detail that this has never been NCAA's mission (at least not the only one) however creates problem here and there.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

The fact that you are saying what the NCAA is doing probably wouldn't hold up in court is even more proof that the NCAA does in fact have tons of power. If they didn't, Penn State would just say no we're not doing anything you say or take them to court. They will do neither because the NCAA has a lot of power, including the power to keep this out of the courts.

Penn State is free to leave the NCAA if they want.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I agree the NCAA is hypocritical about a great many things. I think in large part it's a function of the huge cash flow coming in that is NCAA football and basketball. ...

Cash flow into the NCAA member institutions? Or cash flow into the NCAA the office? TheCommish posted the below a year ago (before all of this)Time for-football to pick a side

In exchange for all this, football provides a pittance to the NCAA. The revenue the national office made from football amounted to $420,000, the total of the licensing fees paid by the 35 bowl games. That’s not even enough to cover the NCAA’s estimated $500,000 loss that the Association takes putting on the FCS tournament.

 

[cheese]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

The fact that you are saying what the NCAA is doing probably wouldn't hold up in court is even more proof that the NCAA does in fact have tons of power. If they didn't, Penn State would just say no we're not doing anything you say or take them to court. They will do neither because the NCAA has a lot of power, including the power to keep this out of the courts.

Penn State is free to leave the NCAA if they want.

Sure, if they don't want relevant sports or money.

 

[fatness]

This is why Penn State negotiated the sanctions and consented to them.

Penn State officials agreed to the severe sanctions announced Monday by the NCAA only because the alternative was worse: the shutdown of the football program, often called the death penalty. Although NCAA officials have denied any such threat was made, several university officials have indicted otherwise.

David La Torre told the Associated Press that university president Rodney Erickson had little choice. "We had our backs to the wall on this," Erickson told the Centre Daily Times, the daily newspaper based in State College. "We did what we thought was necessary to save the program."

The threat was no football for several years, a punishment far harsher than the unprecedented one-year ban imposed on Southern Methodist University in 1987, Erickson told ESPN. "Various numbers were tossed around, four being the highest," Erickson told the cable sports network's John Barr, calling such a fate "traumatic for everyone. It's traumatic for the student-athletes involved. It's traumatic for the university."

"I think, generally speaking, that the community felt that playing was better than not playing," said Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the board of trustees, during the Centre Daily Times interview that included interim athletic director David Joyner.

In that interview, Erickson also said, "I thought we'll be able to recover more quickly from these sanctions than we would from the death penalty over the course of a number of years."

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

The fact that you are saying what the NCAA is doing probably wouldn't hold up in court is even more proof that the NCAA does in fact have tons of power. If they didn't, Penn State would just say no we're not doing anything you say or take them to court. They will do neither because the NCAA has a lot of power, including the power to keep this out of the courts.

Penn State is free to leave the NCAA if they want.

Sure, if they don't want relevant sports or money.

Not disagreeing but just pointing out another option for those that think the NCAA is such a bad guy. NCAA is the one providing them a route to make all this money.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If the real problem is the "culture" of college football, than attack that culture unilaterally. Make the decision to cut off TV...for everyone. Cut the scholarships in half...for everyobody. Limit stadium sizes to 40,000 or so. Ditch the bowl system and have a true playoff, one that is NOT televised for profit. Until and unless you take the profit out of football, then blaming the "culture" is assinine, because the NCAA and every single poster in here who cares about college football, every person who tunes into the telivised game or buys a ticket is complicit in it.

College football's factories sued the NCAA in the late '70's, early '80's because the NCAA negotiated a national TV contract that would have equally shared the revenue. The NCAA lost and since then the NCAA has largely been left out of the real decisions and the revenue associated with it. At the same time they have defended tooth and nail the cash cow of the bowl system to prevent the mistake that was the NCAA Tournament in basketball from inflicting football.I made a bunch of what would the NCAA do predictions that turned out to be completely off base. They were wrong because I assumed the 64 (or so) football schools that matter, that control the purse strings would never allow the NCAA to make such a statement. Since this was unanimous they clearly did. People are all talking about the bad precedent this creates, while others are arguing there is no precedent at all. I think it is way too early to decide that, but the question that remains is whether this is a "don't less a crisis go to waste" moment where college presidents across these factories try to regain some control of their institutions.I've tried to avoid to draw an opinion on the sanctions themselves but tried to limit my comments on whether the NCAA could sanction the NCAA and really whether it had a choice. The opinion on whether these sanctions are appropriate will largely be formed in the future as we see what changes (if any) happen. I do for the first time I can recall believe the vacating of wins is appropriate. That opinion is simply formed based on it seeming to be the one mattered the most. Seems to me that those worried about the record book simply don't get it.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Odds on Silas Redd transferring in the next week?

No way he stays imo.

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

Odds on Silas Redd transferring in the next week?

No way he stays imo.

and USC might be the front runner...lol, ironical, a bit

 

[Mario Kart]

Ivan, I did not catch the beginning of your argument so I may have missed some responses that may be similar to mine, but I am not understanding your points... here is why:

Unless I am mistaken you are okay with the head of the college getting what they deserve but the football sanctions and such you are not good with. That is what I get from your arguments.

I guess I am looking at things like a business. If the CEO and CFO and the heads of a business make a couple bad decisions, the business could lose millions, billions or even go bankrupt. This, of course, hurts those upper people but it also hurts the employees, stock holders (if any) surrounding businesses and possibly more. Each of those entities had nothing to do with the loss of money due to the decisions from the top but each are suffering.

As far as Penn State goes, the upper people not only made poor decisions but those decisions cost more than money, as in inhumane treatment of innocent kids. Yes, the students and community did not "assist" in those decisions but they are similar to the employees above. Yes, the students and community will suffer because of the actions of a few but like in any business, those are the breaks.

Ultimately, I am in the camp that the NCAA did not go far enough. I would have liked to see a long bowl ban along with more funds taken. That $60 million is a drop in the bucket however I know the pending lawsuits will be enormous. I think Penn State has a chance to make things a bit more right by self imposing their own sanctions. What is sad is that when Penn State is bowl eligible and reaches a bowl game again, that team will be overshadowed by all of the retrospectives about this incident. Those students will not want to be associated with this but even they, the unknown, will be affected by this.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Ivan, I did not catch the beginning of your argument so I may have missed some responses that may be similar to mine, but I am not understanding your points... here is why:Unless I am mistaken you are okay with the head of the college getting what they deserve but the football sanctions and such you are not good with. That is what I get from your arguments.

Right. That's a fair summary of what I've been saying.

I guess I am looking at things like a business. If the CEO and CFO and the heads of a business make a couple bad decisions, the business could lose millions, billions or even go bankrupt. This, of course, hurts those upper people but it also hurts the employees, stock holders (if any) surrounding businesses and possibly more. Each of those entities had nothing to do with the loss of money due to the decisions from the top but each are suffering. As far as Penn State goes, the upper people not only made poor decisions but those decisions cost more than money, as in inhumane treatment of innocent kids. Yes, the students and community did not "assist" in those decisions but they are similar to the employees above. Yes, the students and community will suffer because of the actions of a few but like in any business, those are the breaks.

That's true. Earlier in the thread, timschochet was arguing that Penn State shouldn't be subject to civil litigation by Sandusky's victims on the grounds that doing so would hurt lots of people at the university who were innocent of all this, and I took the exact same position that you're taking. Victims have every right to sue to be made whole (at least to the degree that they can be made whole by a lawsuit). That's what tort law exists for. Yes, it hurts the university, but paying compensation to the victims is more important. In other words, I basically agree with you so far.

Ultimately, I am in the camp that the NCAA did not go far enough. I would have liked to see a long bowl ban along with more funds taken. That $60 million is a drop in the bucket however I know the pending lawsuits will be enormous. I think Penn State has a chance to make things a bit more right by self imposing their own sanctions. What is sad is that when Penn State is bowl eligible and reaches a bowl game again, that team will be overshadowed by all of the retrospectives about this incident. Those students will not want to be associated with this but even they, the unknown, will be affected by this.

It's only when we bring the NCAA into the picture that I have a problem. The NCAA has no business being involved in this. The Sandusky scandal wasn't about recruiting, or the amateur status of student-athletes, or maintaining a level playing field. It was a crime. I don't want Pennsylvania law enforcement agencies getting involved in how many off-season training sessions the men's swim team has, and I don't want the NCAA involved in criminal matters. This is power grab by the NCAA and it sets a horrible precedent IMO.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Did the big 10 say no tv and tv revenue or just no big 10 championship or big 10 bowl money share?

 

[Kiddnets]

Did the Paterno family express outrage at the sanctions yet? I havent seen anything and I'm sure they won't miss a chance to put their foot in their mouths again.....can't wait for their investigation to be released...

 

[pollardsvision]

This is why Penn State negotiated the sanctions and consented to them.

Penn State officials agreed to the severe sanctions announced Monday by the NCAA only because the alternative was worse: the shutdown of the football program, often called the death penalty. Although NCAA officials have denied any such threat was made, several university officials have indicted otherwise.

David La Torre told the Associated Press that university president Rodney Erickson had little choice. "We had our backs to the wall on this," Erickson told the Centre Daily Times, the daily newspaper based in State College. "We did what we thought was necessary to save the program."

The threat was no football for several years, a punishment far harsher than the unprecedented one-year ban imposed on Southern Methodist University in 1987, Erickson told ESPN. "Various numbers were tossed around, four being the highest," Erickson told the cable sports network's John Barr, calling such a fate "traumatic for everyone. It's traumatic for the student-athletes involved. It's traumatic for the university."

"I think, generally speaking, that the community felt that playing was better than not playing," said Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the board of trustees, during the Centre Daily Times interview that included interim athletic director David Joyner.

In that interview, Erickson also said, "I thought we'll be able to recover more quickly from these sanctions than we would from the death penalty over the course of a number of years."

This is all anyone needs to know.Can all of the child-rape apologists and defenders please read this and stop complaining?

Your offensive rhetoric aside, I don't see the point.Are you saying that the people that think the NCAA overstepped their bounds should take solace that it could have been worse?

If that's what you mean, that's silly. The NCAA giving PSU the "choice" of the death penalty and the near-death penalty doesn't change anything. It's almost worse. They threatened them with something ludicrous so they'd take something almost as ludicrous lying down.

"Hey, Johnny's not a bully. He gives people the option of handing over their lunch money instead of getting a schoolyard beating"

It think the NCAA overstepped their bounds, but I really don't care. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over the PSU football program getting set back 10 years, and I have no sympathy for the fans. Most CFB fans have to root for mediocre or bad programs. There are worse things in the world.

 

[CrossEyed]

Whoever is sending the memo to the Paterno family to just be quiet might want to cc Franco Harris.

 

[Fat Nick]

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

Ok - thanks. Seems like a lot of smart people fall on both sides of this debate - it doesn't really matter to me personally. I do think that one of the problems here was that PSU let Paterno get to be too powerful but I'm not sure how you police something like that or whether it should be. I'm also not sure if they should have vacated the wins but I do think it is fitting that Paterno is no longer at the top of the wins list.

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

 

[roadkill1292]

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

Ok - thanks. Seems like a lot of smart people fall on both sides of this debate - it doesn't really matter to me personally. I do think that one of the problems here was that PSU let Paterno get to be too powerful but I'm not sure how you police something like that or whether it should be. I'm also not sure if they should have vacated the wins but I do think it is fitting that Paterno is no longer at the top of the wins list.

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

From my ivory tower, vacating wins seems pretty irrelevant except to the nerds who like seeing written records.

 

[CrossEyed]

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

Ok - thanks. Seems like a lot of smart people fall on both sides of this debate - it doesn't really matter to me personally. I do think that one of the problems here was that PSU let Paterno get to be too powerful but I'm not sure how you police something like that or whether it should be. I'm also not sure if they should have vacated the wins but I do think it is fitting that Paterno is no longer at the top of the wins list.

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

 

[Maude]

This is why Penn State negotiated the sanctions and consented to them.

Penn State officials agreed to the severe sanctions announced Monday by the NCAA only because the alternative was worse: the shutdown of the football program, often called the death penalty. Although NCAA officials have denied any such threat was made, several university officials have indicted otherwise.

David La Torre told the Associated Press that university president Rodney Erickson had little choice. "We had our backs to the wall on this," Erickson told the Centre Daily Times, the daily newspaper based in State College. "We did what we thought was necessary to save the program."

The threat was no football for several years, a punishment far harsher than the unprecedented one-year ban imposed on Southern Methodist University in 1987, Erickson told ESPN. "Various numbers were tossed around, four being the highest," Erickson told the cable sports network's John Barr, calling such a fate "traumatic for everyone. It's traumatic for the student-athletes involved. It's traumatic for the university."

"I think, generally speaking, that the community felt that playing was better than not playing," said Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the board of trustees, during the Centre Daily Times interview that included interim athletic director David Joyner.

In that interview, Erickson also said, "I thought we'll be able to recover more quickly from these sanctions than we would from the death penalty over the course of a number of years."

This is all anyone needs to know.Can all of the child-rape apologists and defenders please read this and stop complaining?

Your offensive rhetoric aside, I don't see the point.Are you saying that the people that think the NCAA overstepped their bounds should take solace that it could have been worse?If that's what you mean, that's silly. The NCAA giving PSU the "choice" of the death penalty and the near-death penalty doesn't change anything. It's almost worse. They threatened them with something ludicrous so they'd take something almost as ludicrous lying down.

"Hey, Johnny's not a bully. He gives people the option of handing over their lunch money instead of getting a schoolyard beating"

It think the NCAA overstepped their bounds, but I really don't care. I'm certainly not going to lose sleep over the PSU football program getting set back 10 years, and I have no sympathy for the fans. Most CFB fans have to root for mediocre or bad programs. There are worse things in the world.

In a sense, yes. But more to the point, PSU officials clearly don't have a problem with the NCAA making these decisions, so why should anyone else care? Quite frankly, PSU is probably thrilled that they at least get to continue to generate millions of dollars over the next few years because there was a distinct possibility that was not going to happen. My point is... who gives a #### what the NCAA has done? The university covered up a horrific decade long crime, and now they are being punished. There is collateral damage, but tough ####. Get over it. It's ####### football for chrissakes, and people are outraged over damage to a football program over a bunch a kids being raped.

 

[Christo]

How are these in any way absurd? If anything, these are wholly and completely inadequate and the NCAA really chickened out here.

USC got basically 3 years of probation (3 years of reduced scholarships, 2 year post season ban) for putting an athlete's parents up in a nice house. 11 years of covering up child rape so you could go on making money is worth one more year than that? What a joke.

USC violated NCAA rules and therefore got punished by the NCAA. PSU did not actually violate any NCAA rules. That's why some of us think it's absurd that they're facing NCAA sanctions.

Wow, still so much misunderstanding. USC did not put an athlete's parents up in a nice house. A wannabe agent with no connection to USC put Reggie Bush's parents up in a nice house in San Diego, about 120 miles from USC. These benefits given to Bush's family in no way helped USC. They weren't benefits given for Bush to come to USC. In fact, they were benefits given for Bush to leave USC. Despite not violating NCAA rules, USC was punished for not knowing what Bush's family was receiving from people with no connection to the university 120 miles away.

You are wrong. USC violated NCAA rules because it played Bush when he was ineligible. There are specific rules against a player receiving benefits from an agent either directly or indirectly.

12.3 Use of Agents

12.3.1 general rule. An individual shall be ineligible for participation in an intercollegiate sport if he or she ever has agreed (orally or in writing) to be represented by an agent for the purpose of marketing his or her athletics ability or reputation in that sport. Further, an agency contract not specifically limited in writing to a sport or particular sports shall be deemed applicable to all sports, and the individual shall be ineligible to participate in any sport.

12.3.1.1 Representation for Future Negotiations. An individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she enters into a verbal or written agreement with an agent for representation in future professional sports negotiations that are to take place after the individual has completed his or her eligibility in that sport.

12.3.1.2 Benefits from Prospective Agents. An individual shall be ineligible per Bylaw 12.3.1 if he or she (or his or her relatives or friends) accepts transportation or other benefits from: (Revised: 1/14/97)

(a) Any person who represents any individual in the marketing of his or her athletics ability. The receipt of

such expenses constitutes compensation based on athletics skill and is an extra benefit not available to the

student body in general; or

(b) An agent, even if the agent has indicated that he or she has no interest in representing the student-athlete

in the marketing of his or her athletics ability or reputation and does not represent individuals in the

student-athlete’s sport. (Adopted: 1/14/97)

12.3.1.3 Exception—Career Counseling and Internship/Job Placement Services. A student-athlete may use career counseling and internship/job placement services available exclusively to student-athletes, provided the student-athlete is not placed in a position in which the student-athlete uses his or her athletics ability.

 

[Wadsworth]

This is why Penn State negotiated the sanctions and consented to them.

Penn State officials agreed to the severe sanctions announced Monday by the NCAA only because the alternative was worse: the shutdown of the football program, often called the death penalty. Although NCAA officials have denied any such threat was made, several university officials have indicted otherwise.

David La Torre told the Associated Press that university president Rodney Erickson had little choice. "We had our backs to the wall on this," Erickson told the Centre Daily Times, the daily newspaper based in State College. "We did what we thought was necessary to save the program."

The threat was no football for several years, a punishment far harsher than the unprecedented one-year ban imposed on Southern Methodist University in 1987, Erickson told ESPN. "Various numbers were tossed around, four being the highest," Erickson told the cable sports network's John Barr, calling such a fate "traumatic for everyone. It's traumatic for the student-athletes involved. It's traumatic for the university."

"I think, generally speaking, that the community felt that playing was better than not playing," said Karen Peetz, chairwoman of the board of trustees, during the Centre Daily Times interview that included interim athletic director David Joyner.

In that interview, Erickson also said, "I thought we'll be able to recover more quickly from these sanctions than we would from the death penalty over the course of a number of years."

This is all anyone needs to know.Can all of the child-rape apologists and defenders please read this and stop complaining?

I am betting not.

 

[Fat Nick]

Back to this...why do you feel this way? Because Joe Paterno didn't win the most games in which he was the head coach fielding a team of players who met the NCAA qualifications for an "eligible player?" OR because you just feel that given this he should have to arbitrarily give up an honor that is, by all accounts, NOT subjective?

"Most wins" is not like a gymnast's score in the olympics, where the French judge can show bias and be subjective. It's like a soccer score...you either scored or you didn't. To me, if the NCAA is going to take away wins, they need to be able to show where the wins should be forefitted b/c of some on-field bias.

I can see this argument. I guess it just depends on how you look at it. Kind of like Pete Rose not being in the HOF. Does integrity matter or not? I can understand the NCAA not wanting Paterno on the top of this list forever, given what happened. I can also understand the folks who say that it should simply be about what happened on the field. Personally, I think integrity should matter, so I'm glad they stripped him of the wins.

I actually made the Pete Rose analogy when talking with friends...Pete Rose isn't in the HOF...which IS a subjective measure, and I do think integrity is one of those measures. It's a hall of greatness as voted on by media/baseball peers, etc. This would have been more like if they took Pete Rose's hit record and said, "We're taking away 1,500 of your career hits." I would have no issue with the NCAA taking JoePa out of it's coaching HOF. That's subjective...do whatever you want. But you can't take wins justly earned just like you can't say Pete Rose suddenly had 1,500 less hits.The NCAA might not want Paterno at the top of that list forever, but he earned those wins...he might have been an enabler, etc...but he won those games as a head coach. The same way Rose might have been a gambler, but he hit the baseball. Records like that shouldn't be about what the governing body "wants." That's what HOF/Coach of the Year/Lifetime Achievement Awards, etc. are for.

 

[Christo]

The only person from Penn State who's been convicted and is in jail is Jerry Sandusky. A couple others are charged. Maybe they'll be found not guilty, or guilty. Maybe they'll serve some time. At some time in the future. Maybe not.

Acting like the courts have already resolved and repaired all this is just sticking your head in the sand.

Nice strawman

Just curious - if the NCAA came out today and said they were vacating Paterno's wins and did nothing else would you be ok with that? What if Paterno hadn't been fired, hadn't died and was still the PSU head coach - would you be ok with what they did then? I really have no opinion on the penalties so this isn't some attempt at defending one side or the other - I don't really care.

What do you mean by okay with that?

Would you think that the NCAA was within their jurisdiction to make that penalty.**I'm not a lawyer and don't speak lawyerese so let's assume for the moment that I'm not trying to trick you or ask vague questions on purpose

The NCAA doesn't have the power to sanction PSU in any manner whatsoever for what happened. But nationwide moral outrage provides the NCAA with the cover to try to foist unwarranted sanctions upon PSU. If PSU doesn't have the stones to stand up to the NCAA given the social climate I have no problem with that.

The fact that you are saying what the NCAA is doing probably wouldn't hold up in court is even more proof that the NCAA does in fact have tons of power. If they didn't, Penn State would just say no we're not doing anything you say or take them to court. They will do neither because the NCAA has a lot of power, including the power to keep this out of the courts.

The power exercised by the NCAA in this case was not innate. It was solely derived through public outrage. The NCAA is using that power to increase the scope of its powers in the future.