NCAA has restored Penn State's eligibility

[fredmccallyRTR]

You don't think Penn St. would have been praised for doing the right thing and protecting kids? Perhaps Penn St. would have become more popular and gotten benefits from doing the right thing?

Don't they have a winning record since this happened? Seems like they are still getting pretty good players, they just haven't been able to get as many because of the schollie reductions.

Ha. My guess is they were hoping/betting this would never become public and they wouldn't have to deal with it at all. You're not inclined to believe the same? Having dealt first hand with institutional corruption within a business, I assure you this is all too common of mindset.

 

[gpm1976]

So you don't think outing a coach for ******ing a kid in your showers would effect the revenue or popularity of your team? You don't think the image of the university was protected in the short term by silence and inaction? Then why didn't they self report what one of their coaches witnessed happening? Why didnt red say anything more? Did it have to do with money and image?

Ok, so what if this all happened off campus and these people knew and never said anything. Is this still a recruiting advantage? Does the team still earn sanctions? You can make this same case about virtually anything. A recruiting advantage is giving a kid an incentive to pick your school.

 

[757Hokie83]

Interesting.

I think this is the right call.

I never thought the hammer should have fallen on Penn State as hard as it did. Everyone affiliated with the scandal lost their job and some are in jail, dead, and/or facing criminal charges.

No reason to punish kids and a new administration that had nothing to do with it.

 

[gpm1976]

That never mattered to the ncaa before, why now?

If they start being this way for the future, then i have no problem with it.

But that's just it. It's the issue with consistency that I have a problem with. Punish some, but not others. That $h!t just doesn't work for me.

 

[Lakers+USC=#1]

But that's just it. It's the issue with consistency that I have a problem with. Punish some, but not others. That $h!t just doesn't work for me.

That's my main issue too.

 

[trojanfan12]

Ha. My guess is they were hoping/betting this would never become public and they wouldn't have to deal with it at all. You're not inclined to believe the same? Having dealt first hand with institutional corruption within a business, I assure you this is all too common of mindset.

I have no doubt that the original intent was to handle it as quietly as possible and hope it went away. However, that wasn't the point we were debating. You said that they benefitted from covering it up.

I didn't disagree, but said there is the possibility that they could have benefitted more by handling it correctly. After all, they would have gotten the positive publicity of protecting kids at the expense of their (at the time) widely respected DC. They also, obviously, wouldn't have had to deal with the shitstorm that ensued when all of this came out.

 

[trojanfan12]

But that's just it. It's the issue with consistency that I have a problem with. Punish some, but not others. That $h!t just doesn't work for me.

Couldn't agree more. My biggest issue with the NCAA is how inconsistent they are with how they handle investigations and dole out punishment.

Also, the NCAA expects schools to just throw themselves on the mercy of the court. If a school actually attempts to defend themselves, the NCAA just hits them harder.

 

[Smart]

Let's forget about the moral aspect for a moment, you don't think PSU benefited competitively and financially in the years between the shower instance and this ahole being arrested by not being more proactive? How many of the kids that went there wouldn't have if PSU would have gone public at the time?

The shower incident happened in 2000. Sandusky was retired. And between 2000 and 2004, Penn State went 26-33. No, there is nothing to suggest that Penn State football would have done worse had they reported it then. It's a stupid baseless argument, but so are most of the anti-Paterno arguments. Penn State had an unprecedented administrative fuckup, and as a result, they penalize the players and coach that did nothing wrong in order to appease the masses.

 

[gpm1976]

I agree. My point is that the rule probably shouldn't have been there in the first place. If it weren't, then Tressell has nothing to lie about.

However, like I said, it IS a rule and Tressell did lie, so the NCAA had no choice but to punish. As for them avoiding LOIC, I don't know why they weren't hit with it (and I really have no desire to see it happen to them or anyone else), but that's the NCAA for you.

You are correct, he did lie... and there's no excuse for that.

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

Ok, so what if this all happened off campus and these people knew and never said anything. Is this still a recruiting advantage? Does the team still earn sanctions? You can make this same case about virtually anything. A recruiting advantage is giving a kid an incentive to pick your school.

No difference if his supervisors were aware of it and did not take appropriate actions within both their professional and personal moral obligations and power. - That doesn't seem like a big burden considering not doing so, like happened in this case, could result in innocent children being harmed.

 

[3riverbabe]

Interesting.

I think this is the right call.

I never thought the hammer should have fallen on Penn State as hard as it did. Everyone affiliated with the scandal lost their job and some are in jail and/or facing criminal charges.

No reason to punish kids and a new administration that had nothing to do with it.

Wholeheartedly agree.

This was, and is, a matter for the criminal justice system, not the NCAA. I understand that the NCAA felt they had to do something, but they overstepped their bounds.

 

[pennstatenut]

This should fire the kids on the team up. Good for them. Hope LSU plays them in the Capital One bowl and skull fucks them....

Better hope it doesn't rain.

 

[TigerBait1971]

Better hope it doesn't rain.

as long as they don't lay down sod 2 hours before the game, we alright....

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

The shower incident happened in 2000. Sandusky was retired. And between 2000 and 2004, Penn State went 26-33. No, there is nothing to suggest that Penn State football would have done worse had they reported it then. It's a stupid baseless argument, but so are most of the anti-Paterno arguments. Penn State had an unprecedented administrative fuckup, and as a result, they penalize the players and coach that did nothing wrong in order to appease the masses.

So you're argument is outing a pedo in their shower wouldn't be considered bad for the university and bad for their football program by their admins? You don't think it has been bad for them? Shit. That's naive.

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

IMO, we saw the NFL get it right today and the NCAA get it wrong. Institutional accountability matters.

 

[pennstatenut]

as long as they don't lay down sod 2 hours before the game, we alright....

first I heard that excuse. Didn't keep us from rolling up 400 yards.

 

[gpm1976]

So you're argument is outing a pedo in their shower wouldn't be considered bad for the university and bad for their football program by their admins? You don't think it has been bad for them? Shit. That's naive.

Then you can say the same for virtually any criminal activity that goes on. OSU's band director just got fired. Better throw some sanctions on the team!! Do you see the can of worms you're trying to open here? The sanctions on PSU were a feel good type of reaction by the NCAA at the time.. but it wasn't right.

 

[fredmccallyRTR]

I have no doubt that the original intent was to handle it as quietly as possible and hope it went away. However, that wasn't the point we were debating. You said that they benefitted from covering it up.

I didn't disagree, but said there is the possibility that they could have benefitted more by handling it correctly. After all, they would have gotten the positive publicity of protecting kids at the expense of their (at the time) widely respected DC. They also, obviously, wouldn't have had to deal with the shitstorm that ensued when all of this came out.

In hindsight they would have been better off handling it that way of course. No doubt there. They weren't thinking that at the time, though. I suspect they were taking the cover your ears and close your eyes approach and hoping it would go away.

 

[TigerBait1971]

first I heard that excuse. Didn't keep us from rolling up 400 yards.

meh

 

[gpm1976]

IMO, we saw the NFL get it right today and the NCAA get it wrong. Institutional accountability matters.

College football is not the NFL. Here you're dealing with student athletes, most of which will never go onto the next level. They also do not have a union.