"Unprecedented" penalties TBA for PSU

[TechSBP]

Heee's right; you know that.



:biggthumpup:

Right isn't the word. He's something beyond that. He's telling us the sky is blue.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

I'll open myself up to criticism here with this comment, but I'll play devils advocate here.

Doesn't this seem pretty far outside the scope of the NCAA? I get the lack of institutional control argument, but it has never been applied like this. What about schools that continually have arrest problems with their players? Isn't that program out of control? I get the cover-up aspect is what separates the two, but I think this starts a slippery slope when an organization skips their normal process to render a judgement like this due to public pressure.

Fire away

You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

You would have seen where BOR got his panties in a wad over me saying the same thing.

 

[aeromech]

I'll open myself up to criticism here with this comment, but I'll play devils advocate here.

Doesn't this seem pretty far outside the scope of the NCAA? I get the lack of institutional control argument, but it has never been applied like this. What about schools that continually have arrest problems with their players? Isn't that program out of control? I get the cover-up aspect is what separates the two, but I think this starts a slippery slope when an organization skips their normal process to render a judgement like this due to public pressure.

Fire away

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.

LINK

I don't disagree with your post; but I think the trick will be getting the BOD to agree to crucify one another. In the PSU case, there was a broad interest outside of the sports world watching what the NCAA was going to do or not do; that I think inspired the BOD interest. The routine arrests, recruiting violations, and drug offenses involving players simply doesn't get this kind of interest outside the sports community.

 

[AE 87]

Right isn't the word. He's something beyond that. He's telling us the sky is blue.

[y]1Q3RogvU5qA[/y]

 

[GATechAE07]

I fail to see what libertarianism has to do with anything in this whole scenario.

edit: Oh, right torture. Well yeah, torture is dumb.

Conveniently ignoring parts of the constitution just so you can feel better by torturing and killing a US citizen?

What part of the constitution is that? He was given a trial and found guilty. The death penalty is legal in the constitution after having your day in court. Torture is subjective and the Geneva conventions don't govern what you do to your own citizens.

I was referencing gtzulu's post about depriving one innocent individual his rights in order to protect the greater good. It's the same argument with the death penalty: is it more unjust to kill one innocent person than to let 100 guilty go free? For a belief system that relies heavily on individual freedom and liberty, I was surprised to see so any admitted libertarians hop on the bandwagon.

 

[Diseqc]

10 yrs probation, loss of 10 scholarships for 5 yrs, 5 yr postseason bowl ban, and anyone is allowed to transfer out.

If that rumor is true, then holy ----. A one year death penalty probably would be better.

 

[05GTCorndog]

You obviously haven't read the entire thread.

You would have seen where BOR got his panties in a wad over me saying the same thing.

I generally skip your posts.

 

[ncjacket]

I'll open myself up to criticism here with this comment, but I'll play devils advocate here.

Doesn't this seem pretty far outside the scope of the NCAA? I get the lack of institutional control argument, but it has never been applied like this. What about schools that continually have arrest problems with their players? Isn't that program out of control? I get the cover-up aspect is what separates the two, but I think this starts a slippery slope when an organization skips their normal process to render a judgement like this due to public pressure.

Fire away

While that program may be out of control in the sense that they recruit players who shouldn't be on campus, the fact that in your example they get arrested and presumably pay some penalty sets it apart from PSU. Paterno had a patern of holding his program above any rules that applied to other students even beyond the Sandusky coverup. Find the article by the former VP of student affairs or whatever her title was and read about how he controlled the athletic department and university. I think that is a big part of what the NCAA is reacting to.

 

[TheTaxJacket]

If that rumor is true, then holy ----. A one year death penalty probably would be better.

Agree I was thinking this is what Schads comment about it not being the death penalty but probably worse long term.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

I generally skip your posts.

Do you skip BORs as well?

 

[05GTCorndog]

Do you skip BORs as well?

Don't take offense, I really only value my opinion and read very little of anyone's posts that don't originate from me. :wink:

 

[gsu_paintballer]

Don't take offense, I really only value my opinion and read very little of anyone's posts that don't originate from me. :wink:

Makes sense.

 

[cyptomcat]

I generally skip your posts.

that's a shame, you missed this:

Penn State is no USC.

 

[05GTCorndog]

that's a shame, you missed this:

What does that mean?

I assume it means that PSU hasn't had the program success USC has had recently. This might be true, if you are 15 years old, but if you look back 50 years, you'll see otherwise.

 

[cyptomcat]

What does that mean?

I assume it means that PSU hasn't had the program success USC has had recently. This might be true, if you are 15 years old, but if you look back 50 years, you'll see otherwise.

Even now the Penn State athletic revenue is 1.5 times USC's even though Penn State has no championships to show for last 15 years.

But regardless, you had it right in the bolded part.

 

[gsu_paintballer]

What does that mean?

I assume it means that PSU hasn't had the program success USC has had recently. This might be true, if you are 15 years old, but if you look back 50 years, you'll see otherwise.

In the last 20 years, PSU has zero national championships, one outright conference title and two shared ones. If you extend it another 10 years, PSU picks up two national championships.

In that same time, USC has two national championships, four outright conference championships and five shared conference championships. Moving to thirty years, USC adds three outright conference titles and one shared.

If you'd like to go back even farther, USC tips the scales a good deal.

For instance, PSU's accomplishments above (all during my lifetime - I'm 24) are all they have until you go back to 1912. I suppose that if you are 100 years old, then yes, you do have a perspective advantage over this young chap. That makes a pretty good example of how age (which cyp does not have much over me, though I do not know about corndog) has little to do with it.

USC has not gone a decade without multiple championships, FWIW.

 

[GT1992]

What does that mean?

I assume it means that PSU hasn't had the program success USC has had recently. This might be true, if you are 15 years old, but if you look back 50 years, you'll see otherwise.

Incorrect. In the last 50 years, Penn State has 2 national championships to the 6 of USC.

 

[ramblinwise1]

If you do that though, then the NCAA is going to have a whole lot more schools that it can (and arguably should) punish. Look at U[sic]GA's ten offseason arrests every year...those are frequent and consistent extralegal activities of U[sic]GA that are certainly counter to the mission of the NCAA.

I see what you are saying, but the NCAA has never done it like you are saying before and to do so would really be opening Pandora's box, in my opinion.

I agree completely and have said such. The real problem is that the NCAA is an inconsistent arse. They won't ever slap UGay for recruiting players that go out and rob convenience stores or kill someone in a drug deal (its just a matter of time folks). They are the politically correct fanny police. Their main goal seems to be to protect their own reputation, not provide for a fair and level playing field.

 

[ramblinwise1]

Incorrect. In the last 50 years, Penn State has 2 national championships to the 6 of USC.

In the early 60s Penn State didn't play anybody and would have a good record and then whine incessantly about not being respected in the polls. They hit the top in the early 80s, one of those years they defeated UGay to take a national title from them.

 

[BlackJacket]

There is a major difference though; the $300 (in theory) allowed us to put a player on the field who wouldn't have been there otherwise. If it indeed happened, it was tantamount to us paying players which is a obviously a competitive advantage.

Up until this case, it's never been about the severity of a crime, but rather about the impact it had on competitive balance. In this case, it seems a lot more about the severity of the crime and the shame it has brought on college football. I don't think comparing this to our $300 violation or any other violation is really appropriate.

Sandusky being allowed to keep his job for years, after they found out what he was doing, can be classified as some sort of competitive related advantage. Whether it actually helped them, having him in the locker room or not, is up for debate I guess. He shouldn't have been there though. He should have been where he is at this moment.