A place for the discussion of all things not closely related to the sport and its competitive side. (Locked down several times a year during the major championships)
jazzcyclist wrote: With all due respect, this is totally outside the purview of the NCAA's authority. The NCAA is supposed to police fair play among its member institutions, not delve into matters better left to the criminal justice system. Penn State got no competitive advantage from Sandusky's crimes and the subsequent cover-up.
Jazz, your reasoning is getting quite bizarre. They didn't get a competitive advantage? Oh, boy, is that the level of what the NCAA is about?
Suppose Sandusky was John Gacy and murdered his victims, would that be enough?
All jazzcyclist says is that this entire sordid mess belongs to criminal/civil courts and is not for the NCAA to act on.
All jazzcyclist says is that this entire sordid mess belongs to criminal/civil courts and is not for the NCAA to act on.
I guess so, but that could take years. Meanwhile, the PSU football team will be marching on to victory...and trying to forget everything that happened. Swell.
By the way, the Big Ten Network, to their credit, had an hour show about the scandal last night.
Conor Dary wrote:I guess so, but that could take years. Meanwhile, the PSU football team will be marching on to victory...and trying to forget everything that happened. Swell.
Regardless of whether the program gets severe penalties from the NCAA or none (leaving it to the courts) I think the face of the football program will never be the same. They will always have a black eye from this in some form or another.
jazzcyclist wrote: Everybody from the water boy to the President has been fired. There are no longer any people in the Penn State football program that had any ties to Paterno and/or Sandusky. What more would you want them to do?
So these people are no longer with the program? Why are they still listed on their website?
It appears they will take down Joe's likeness at Brown (alma mater). The Red Sox asked that stat-man Bill James keep his opinions on Joe to himself. I don't think I agree with the former, the latter is cool.
jazzcyclist wrote: Everybody from the water boy to the President has been fired. There are no longer any people in the Penn State football program that had any ties to Paterno and/or Sandusky. What more would you want them to do?
So these people are no longer with the program? Why are they still listed on their website?
I'm surprised that they were kept on. Last year, it was considered a foregone conclusion that O'Brien would have to start from scratch. I wonder why the media let his decision to keep them fly under the radar.
Conor Dary wrote:Jazz, I know you are a decent fellow and all, and I mean no offense, but your thinking somehow strikes me as similar to how Penn State got into this whole mess.
I do not think this is accurate at all, even if it seems like it might be on the surface.
Giving the school the NCAA 'death penalty' might make people feel good, but would it really be much of a deterrent to a Sandusky? What would lead to the Paternos doing the right thing the next tie. At the Rose Bowl trip this year a Wisconsin Asst (Associate?) AD was hitting on (male) student workers and was immediately booted as soon as they got back and could interview the person -- probably an accelerated reaction due to Penn State, but it probably would have happened in some manner.
While it is not the main point, it is not irrelevant that shutting down the football program will likely result in thousands of people being unemployed with many, many families, often struggling ones, adversely affected.
While it is not the main point, it is not irrelevant that shutting down the football program will likely result in thousands of people being unemployed with many, many families, often struggling ones, adversely affected.
I understand that. But that is a question with lots of things that get shut down. Industries, too many prisons, etc.
But if you can shut down SMU's program, and I didn't see anyone moaning about those workers, what do you do with Penn State? And the NCAA is going to do something.
Conor Dary wrote:I understand that. But that is a question with lots of things that get shut down. Industries, too many prisons, etc.
But if you can shut down SMU's program, and I didn't see anyone moaning about those workers, what do you do with Penn State? And the NCAA is going to do something.
CD, you don't have to agree with me on whether the NCAA should get involved or not, but do you even understand the underlying difference between the SMU and Penn State scandals?
Is it viable to spin off the D1 football teams into a semi-professional farm team league? Any sports program that is big enough to damage the academic mission really has no business being part of a university.
Daisy wrote:Is it viable to spin off the D1 football teams into a semi-professional farm team league? Any sports program that is big enough to damage the academic mission really has no business being part of a university.
One potential problem. Would the players still work for free?
Another consequence is that with the exception of division I men's basketball, it would mark the end of big-time college sports as we know, including our beloved track and field.
jazzcyclist wrote:With all due respect, this is totally outside the purview of the NCAA's authority. The NCAA is supposed to police fair play among its member institutions, not delve into matters better left to the criminal justice system. Penn State got no competitive advantage from Sandusky's crimes and the subsequent cover-up. Even with the Baylor men's basketball team scandal, which involved drug dealing, murder and murder cover-up, the NCAA kept its beak out. And when you consider how incompetent the NCAA is at doing the job it's supposed to do - turning a blind eye at Auburn, Cam Newton and Ohio State while going after low hanging fruit like Cal Tech - do you really want them involved in criminal justice matters too?
It's called "Lack of Institutional control" (the biggest ncaa violation)
One potential problem. Would the players still work for free?
Another consequence is that with the exception of division I men's basketball, it would mark the end of big-time college sports as we know, including our beloved track and field.
Exactly. Heresy of Daisy and Conor Dary calls for a burning at stake. Nothing less would suffice.
Pego wrote:Heresy of Daisy and Conor calls for a burning at stake. Nothing less would suffice.
We'd only lose a few track programs
Don't the europeans manage fine without university level sports? Or do their clubs fill the gap? Sometimes I wonder whether the clubs are actually healthier as there is more involvement at all ages rather than just packing it in after university.
I also have to wonder whether PSU did not gain any competitive advantage by covering up the crime. If it had been exposed in 1998, could they have recruited the players they did since then? How is that interpreted?
TN1965 wrote:I also have to wonder whether PSU did not gain any competitive advantage by covering up the crime. If it had been exposed in 1998, could they have recruited the players they did since then? How is that interpreted?
Now that's an Orwellian interpretation competitive advantage.
Bruce Kritzler wrote:It means whatever the NCAA Infraction Committee wants it to mean. (big Catch-All)
Actually it has to do with people acting on behalf of the athletic department without any oversight. The vast majority of the time it involves rogue boosters, but it can involve university employees who are acting without the consent of a coach and/or athletic director. Ironiocally, SMU didn't have a LOIC situation because all the decsions involving money and gifts to player were discussed and approved at meetings which included the athletic director, the President, the board of dorectors and the Governor.
TN1965 wrote:I also have to wonder whether PSU did not gain any competitive advantage by covering up the crime. If it had been exposed in 1998, could they have recruited the players they did since then? How is that interpreted?
Now that's an Orwellian interpretation competitive advantage.
TN1965 wrote:I also have to wonder whether PSU did not gain any competitive advantage by covering up the crime. If it had been exposed in 1998, could they have recruited the players they did since then? How is that interpreted?
Now that's an Orwellian interpretation competitive advantage.
Not at all.
CD, you've already proven that you're too obtuse to understand the underlying difference between Penn State and SMU. So I suggest that we follow gh's request to follow rule #14, since there won't be any constructive debate between you and I on this topic.
TN1965 wrote:I also have to wonder whether PSU did not gain any competitive advantage by covering up the crime. If it had been exposed in 1998, could they have recruited the players they did since then? How is that interpreted?
Now that's an Orwellian interpretation competitive advantage.
Not at all.
CD, you've already proven that you're too obtuse to understand the underlying difference between Penn State and SMU.
It is over jazz.
Last edited by Conor Dary on Sat Jul 21, 2012 4:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.
