Toga
Living Legend
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 30,672
- Like
- 71,953
Objects in your rear view mirror are smaller than they appear. Much smaller.If the NCAA checks in their rear view mirror right about now they'll see their integrity.
Objects in your rear view mirror are smaller than they appear. Much smaller.If the NCAA checks in their rear view mirror right about now they'll see their integrity.
But in nearly all of those cases the schools were gaining some type of an advantage on the field, in this case there wasn't.
Because it's rare a school breaks the morals clause.
JoePa disagrees... he feared that the revelation of Sandusky's actions would negatively impact recruiting and may have resulted inNCAA sanctions. So, yes, the cover-up and the enabling of Sandusky did provide an indirect on-the-field advantage for PSU. They deserve(d) Death.As horrific as that situation was it didnt give PSU an advantage on the football field
Such outrage against the NCAA but people were cool with us playing them last year when we should have canceled.
Chip said:I don't think the two items could be more unrelated. It wasn't some reward for PSU to play us. It would have been a punishment to SU if we cancelled it. However, PSU having everything lifted essentially means the NCAA is running themselves like a prison. Released on good behavior. I'm sure all the child molesters in the world are rejoicing, they're probably building a Ray Rice statue.
They are exactly related.
Chip said:Just so I'm clear, you think that people who think it's wrong that the NCAA is letting PSU out of their announced penalty, really should have nothing to say if they were ok with SU going forward with their game against PSU last year? If yes, I might be in the minority, but...wow.
Then, by extension, anyone who attended the game or watched it on TV has also shown his/her hand and should not be afforded a chance to protest the NCAA's move to put an early end to the sanctions. Interesting.It's the same enabling university either way.
Moontan said:Then, by extension, anyone who attended the game or watched it on TV has also shown his/her hand and should not be afforded a chance to protest the NCAA's move to put an early end to the sanctions. Interesting. Short of paying a large amount to MetLife Stadium (and PSU?), there really was no viable way out of that game. The rest of the series was dropped. Full disclosure: I watched last year's PSU game on TV, yet have been a vocal proponent on SyracuseFan.com for the Death Penalty.
As much as your probably right the death penalty was never an option that was going to fly. As horrific as that situation was it didnt give PSU an advantage on the football field which is what is needed ie the SMU situation in which a death penalty situation could apply, and even at that point SMU had been on probation already and warned repeatedly to stop before they finally got the death penalty.
The problem the NCAA ultimately ran into is that everyone who was reponsible for that horrific scenario playing out is either A. Dead B. In Jail C. No longer associated with the program. At this point your punishing PSU superfans and current players who probably couldnt pick Sandusky out of a lineup if you paid them. The NCAA was scared S less that a federal jury would side with PSU and hit them with huge damages so they basically folded there tent at this point and said "mission accomplished". I always figured the sanctions would never last the entire time it was enivitable unfortunately.
I'm fine being in the minority on this, but I personally have no problem with lifting the bowl ban. By all accounts, Penn State has instituted wide-spread internal reforms and checks/balances to ensure this never happens again. The people specifically responsible for this unspeakable atrocity are either dead, in prison, or awaiting trial.
So basically the NCAA is saying "Do whatever you want. LITERALLY anything you want."
Really curious what any breakaway organization would have done in this case. My guess, nothing at all. Membership is not predicated on good institutional behavior, and no "morals clause" exists.Mark Emmert came in championing himself as an innovative reformer. Instead, he's proven to be an enabler who circumvents the rules at every possible opportunity himself, and lacks any semblance of a backbone when it comes to enforcement. The NCAA has always been hypocritical, but under his "leadership" they've taken hypocrisy to an entirely new level. And possibly rendered themselves unnecessary in the process.