NCAA Football 2014

[Timby]

To hear that PSU might be getting their wins back, after already getting their bowl eligibility back, after years of covered-up raping of children seems perverse and absurd. Are you making an argument that the disparity between the two events is justified because child molestation is not an NCAA violation?? Because that's how it reads, but I know that can't be right..

Yanks is apparently unaware of the concept of malum in se.

If you are referring to Sandusky, it would apply.

"The Freeh report is a profound failure," Sollers said. "It isn't a little wrong on the minor issues. It is totally wrong on the most critical issues. That the Board and the NCAA relied on this report, without appropriate review or analysis, is a miscarriage of justice."

The truth about the Freeh report.
http://www.sbnation.com/college-foo...paterno-family-freeh-report-outside-the-lines

"The truth about the Freeh report" according to the Paterno family. Truly they are an unbiased authority on the matter.

You said the Freeh report was bullshit, I told you to cite specifics. Go ahead, it's only a few hundred pages long. Find specific passages in the report that are bullshit. You made the claim, you back it up.

I'm going to believe the report written by the guy who along with his team spent hundreds of hours interviewing hundreds of people, as opposed to the ravings of the family of a man who played an integral part of a conspiracy to conceal a convicted serial child rapist and continued to employ said rapist for years in a position that ensured he had the credibility needed to continue interacting with vulnerable children in an unsupervised capacity.

I mean, yes, the NCAA overstepped its bounds. But to just restore everything a few years later is basically saying that ultimately, the NCAA and the Penn State Board of Trustees can sweep their shit under the carpet.

Because you know something? Football wins don't matter.

Systematic protection of a child rapist? That fucking matters.

Congratulations to Joe Paterno on being re-instated as the winningest child rape accomplice in college football history.

 

[Yanks]

I want to make sure I'm understanding you...Yes of course taking money from an agent is an NCAA violation. USC should have been sanctioned, but I think the punishment did not fit the crime (no point shaving, no victims, etc.).

My point being one (USC) was a rules violation and one (PSU) was not.

To hear that PSU might be getting their wins back, after already getting their bowl eligibility back, after years of covered-up raping of children seems perverse and absurd. Are you making an argument that the disparity between the two events is justified because child molestation is not an NCAA violation?? Because that's how it reads, but I know that can't be right..

Read above.

Not justifying anything. I don't like the way the NCAA punishes. It's always against those that didn't commit "the crime".

 

[Neroon]

I hear what you're saying, and I understand there is a technical, jurisdiction argument to be made. Still, in the court of morality (for lack of a better term) comparing the USC situation and the PSU situation is not even close. So PSU gets off on a technicality? It just seems so absurd to me, but maybe that's a fan's biased reaction.

Maybe it's the entire NCAA process, the randomness and lack of proportionality. Looking at it from the other direction: because NCAA violations are not criminal violations it allowed the actual perpetrators of the USC violations to get off without any consequence whatsoever. The people who paid the price (a very heavy one compared to, say, Ohio State) had absolutely nothing to do with what happened either.

The NCAA has long been charged with inconsistency in the investigation and execution of related punishments. I still cannot root for the Seahawks because Carroll is their coach and knew enough to get when the gettin' was good. OSU's actual indiscretions were minuscule to the others in question here. What hurt them was the covering-up and the klutzy way they handled the punishments after. Still seems out of proportion to other scandals, but eh...

So when the argument is made that "these poor PSU players had nothing to do with the crimes" I understand, but what their program did seems light-years beyond what USC's did. Is there sympathy for the USC players?

This whole "poor students" lament does have a little bit of merit, though. At USC and Ohio St the indiscretions were committed by fellow players (in addition to other people), whereas the PSU scandal was cause by none of the players, evidently. Unless I am missing something (which is entirely possible)

Whether it comes from the NCAA or criminal or civil courts, the ultimate resolution seems way out of whack to me. In the end I guess it's a systemic problem with the whole NCAA concept...

And the delusions of PSU alumni & fans seemingly denying any culpability on the part of university leadership. I can accept restoring the wins, which probably should not have been removed in the first place. What I have the most trouble with is the cessation of the others punitive actions. Restoring scholarships early, removing the bowl ban early. Actions such as those go directly to the heart of the problem, a cultural attitude.

Meanwhile Oregon/Chip Kelly and Auburn/Cam Newton seemed to have more than a little evidence exposing their own problems, yet nothing comes of it.

Not justifying anything. I don't like the way the NCAA punishes. It's always against those that didn't commit "the crime".

How would they in a practical and feasible manner punish the ones responsible, and avoid those who weren't, though? I'm not saying such an approach does nto exist, and I'm not "giving up" but I honestly would like to know what you and others think about that.

 

[mimic]

There are two things that bother me about the argument that Penn State needed to be punished because of a 'systemic cultural problem.'

#1 Penn State's football culture is identical to that of every other large football university.

#2 It places the blame for child rape on me, on Yank, and anyone else who likes or attended Penn State.

 

[gblews]

I want to make sure I'm understanding you...Yes of course taking money from an agent is an NCAA violation. USC should have been sanctioned, but I think the punishment did not fit the crime (no point shaving, no victims, etc.).

My point being one (USC) was a rules violation and one (PSU) was not.

The NCAA's "problem" in the PSU case was attempting to extend it's power into areas where it should not have had any power. In the USC case, the NCAA's "problem" was a misuse of power in that the organization took a personal dislike of USC AD, Mike Garrett, and decided to "show him" by giving the school the "death penalty", which was WAY out of line with the magnitude of the offense.

What the two situations have in common is that the NCAA acted unjustly in both.

 

[gblews]

I hear what you're saying, and I understand there is a technical, jurisdiction argument to be made. Still, in the court of morality (for lack of a better term) comparing the USC situation and the PSU situation is not even close. So PSU gets off on a technicality? It just seems so absurd to me, but maybe that's a fan's biased reaction.

Maybe it's the entire NCAA process, the randomness and lack of proportionality. Looking at it from the other direction: because NCAA violations are not criminal violations it allowed the actual perpetrators of the USC violations to get off without any consequence whatsoever. The people who paid the price (a very heavy one compared to, say, Ohio State) had absolutely nothing to do with what happened either.

The NCAA has long been charged with inconsistency in the investigation and execution of related punishments. I still cannot root for the Seahawks because Carroll is their coach and knew enough to get when the gettin' was good.

Same thing Chip Kelly did, wasn't it?

 

[Alidar Jarok]

I hear what you're saying, and I understand there is a technical, jurisdiction argument to be made. Still, in the court of morality (for lack of a better term) comparing the USC situation and the PSU situation is not even close. So PSU gets off on a technicality? It just seems so absurd to me, but maybe that's a fan's biased reaction.

On the other hand, there's a good argument that, perhaps, people at Penn State should be prosecuted criminally or liable civilly for their acts or omissions. No one is making that argument for USC. I don't think anyone's saying that with USC. There is an alternative forum that is arguably more appropriate.

To me, NCAA sanctions only make sense for a couple of scenarios. One is to right a competitive imbalance. Obviously, it's somewhat of a problem when the people who profited from it have left (however, stripping wins for advantages that led to those wins at least is related). The other is deterrence. Here is probably where the NCAA's claim for right of oversight is stronger. On the other hand, when actions are illegal, it's hard to imagine threats of stripping scholarships or bowl games are greater deterrence than prison time.

Regarding the Freeh Report vs. the Thornburgh Report. Technically, both were run by people who were given autonomy, although certainly they weren't operating in a vacuum. I don't particularly trust the Thornburgh Report precisely because of the people who commissioned it. On the other hand, I do think they have a point at least when it comes to the email evidence, where I'm using the term evidence charitably. It's the worst kind of hearsay (OK, imo, it's technically the second worst kind). It's essentially some comments from someone other than Joe Paterno that says "Coach agrees that..." Presumably "coach" refers to Paterno. But it's not from him, there's nothing clarifying those vague comments, and the people who wrote those comments haven't really been questioned about them. To me, it's problematic to draw such large conclusions on such thin evidence. On the other hand, it's obviously not a criminal prosecution, so the stakes are lower when it comes to reaching such conclusions.

 

[Kronos]

There are two things that bother me about the argument that Penn State needed to be punished because of a 'systemic cultural problem.'

#1 Penn State's football culture is identical to that of every other large football university.

#2 It places the blame for child rape on me, on Yank, and anyone else who likes or attended Penn State.

#1) So what? because lots of big programs exist they should be beyond punishment?

2) No it doesn't, your favorite team being punished doesn't punish you, being a fan/supporter is a hobby, that's a bummer, but if a program is dirty it should be shut down, SMU was a very dirty program in the 80's and was shut down, it basically destroyed the football program, that stinks for the fans and players but it is the proper thing to do.

PSU from the football coach to the AD and president looked the other way concerning a horrible crime because it would damage the football program, that should have been punished in such a way that other schools might take pause before doing the same thing.

 

[mimic]

What I'm saying is if you think that there was some 'toxic culture' unique to us that allowed rape to happen, then there are some passages about motes in eyes that might apply. It could have been any school. It happened to be mine. As far as punishment goes, criminal acts of that nature come with pretty severe punishment as doled out by our criminal justice system. Spanier, Curley, Schultz, Sandusky - all will be in jail for several years; some will be their for the rest of their lives. As they should.

When you blame the culture for something like that happening, you blame everyone who is part of and makes up that culture. Which includes me. It is saying that because I liked going to football games, children were raped. And the vast majority of us at PSU were NOT culpable, and resent being treated like we were.