Reply With Quote
Yes.
Giving recruits money/gifts is a victimless offense. No one got hurt by what Miami did. Penn State's actions led to children being molested.
So you think covering up a criminal action to indirectly keep recruits coming in is a bigger infraction than a Miami booster directly giving money/gifts to recruits?
Yes.
Giving recruits money/gifts is a victimless offense. No one got hurt by what Miami did. Penn State's actions led to children being molested.
in the grand scheme of things, of course.
question still is what jurisdiction does/should the NCAA have regarding criminal offenses that had nothing directly to do with anything on the field?
One can pretty easily argue that the coverup gave Penn State decided on-field advantages -- e.g., they were able to retain the services of a top assistant coach, recruiting didn't take a likely hit, etc. That's the same kind of influence direct player payments can have.
The answer is simple, the NCAA has no power over any ins ution that isn't given to them by said ins ution. There is nothing that says the NCAA can do what they did, however, the alternative is for the NCAA to kick Penn State out of the NCAA, which would likely get them kicked out of the B1G, so to answer the question. The power of the NCAA is implied and given through the presidents. Think of it as a membership with rights and responsibilities.
It's too hard to put an exact amount of advantage to be gained by a cover up, imo Especially since Penn St was ranked #15 in recruiting this year up until the NCAA ruling.
but honestly, if the NCAA came out and said a punishment is deserved for the recruiting advantage gained from the cover-up, I'd be fine with that logic.
But it seems clear to me that the ”worse than death” penalty is about the crime of covering up a horrible crime.
Which is why teams that get caught in cover ups are punished punitively. If all Penn State had to lose by coving the scandal up was the advantage they got by covering it up, there'd be no incentive to not cover it up.
When a college student cheats on a test and gets caught, the teacher doesn't try to figure out the precise point total the student gained by cheating, the teacher gives the student a 0 on the entire test. The same logic applies here.
The penalty is really about deterrence and avoiding lawsuits, TBH.
The difference here, again, is the cover up of a crime vs the cover up of an infraction.
Society as a whole has the responsibly to punitively hit criminals. The NCAA's purpose is to make sure the playing field is even.
Is covering up a crime an NCAA infraction? No, imo.
it's not about the 0. It's about deciding the number of days of detention, suspension or expulsion.When a college student cheats on a test and gets caught, the teacher doesn't try to figure out the precise point total the student gained by cheating, the teacher gives the student a 0 on the entire test. The same logic applies here.
And protecting what remains of the NCAA's legitimacy in the eyes of the public. There's no way Penn State could skate by with no penalty while other schools get nailed because some assistant coach bought some recruit dinner at Applebee's or whatever. The penalty was a sop to public opinion, imo.
Could be both; I didn't read the statement.
And it's not really worse than the death penalty IMO. It's more expedient for everyone involved and gives the NCAA a better chance to soak up money from the program. You can say PSU football is going to suck for years to come, but it's going to be generating revenue all that time.
I don't think it's worse than death either. ”worse than death” has been the popular phrase so I just borrowed it.
Right, and the statement itself says nothing about compe ive advantage. It just basically says that people in charge should be good guys and these guys weren't. I suppose what I pointed out was the reason they weren't good guys but that's another story, I guess.
I did note that Emmert stated precedence was set in South Carolina for the racist flag issues...
Even then, I still don't see why the NCAA has any business punishing the football team.
And why did they stop with football?
If this was an ins utional control issue, why not punish the entire sports program?
Well, they're using these articles of their bylaws in the explanation:
4.1.2 Duties and responsibilities.[*] The Executive Committee shall:...
...
(d) Identify core issues that affect the Association as a whole;
(e) Act on behalf of the Association by adopting and implementing policies to resolve core issues and other
Association-wide matters;
By taking away money from football, they are punishing the entire sports program. Who knows what would be done were it a different sport that didn't largely provide funds for the others.
Yeah, I know what they are basing their ruling on. I think it's murky at best.
Even the new commissioner of the big 12 seems to think that.
of course since penn state bent over and took the plea bargain I guess it's a moot point
The one that took also money from PSU and barred them from championship games?
Upon what did he base his ruling?
Well, there's plenty of precedent.of course since penn state bent over and took the plea bargain I guess it's a moot point
I don't get why Spanier and Curley didn't investigate the whole thing as soon as they heard about it, or early on after hearing about the rumors. There wouldn't really be significant negative consequences, and both would still have their jobs and wouldn't be part of the villains. If they uncovered everything quickly it wouldn't have affected PSU very much, mainly just Sandusky.
No?
Doesn't make sense to me.
My take is that Paterno didn't think he could have survived that kind of revelation at that point in time when Penn State was struggling on the field and there was some pressure to ease him out of the HC position anyway. Paterno was like Bear Bryant- he didn't think he could live without coaching (and as it turned out he was right.)
Dunno. the actual punishment itself looks like some arbitrary figures they pulled out of their asses.
I wonder if the death penalty was issued if they would have tacked on a punitive fine of $60 million as well.
Last edited by Blake; 07-26-2012 at 08:51 AM.
Yeah good point.
http://espn.go.com/college-football/...-say-wife-says
This is insane. She belongs in a mental ins ution.BELLEFONTE, Pa. -- The wife of convicted child molester Jerry Sandusky says she still loves him and "he's not who they say he is."
Dottie Sandusky made the comments Thursday to a Centre Daily Times reporter during a brief encounter on a street in Bellefonte, Pa., near Penn State, where her husband was an assistant football coach under Joe Paterno.
Jerry Sandusky was found guilty of sexually abusing 10 boys. He's behind bars awaiting sentencing.
Dottie Sandusky testified at his trial she never saw him do anything inappropriate with boys he took to their home. She says she's known him for more than 40 years.
Is 60mil the only penalty?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
