OT: Penn State Postseason Eligibility Restored

[SmilinBob]

What we have here is lobbyists in action 101. $ over all else.

 

[retro44]

That appears to sum it up. And it puts a new spin on the Big12 commish's comments from earlier this summer that it is worthwhile to cheat, given the cost/benefit associated with the risk of getting caught.

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.

Ever sense Emmert took over I have been calling for the NCAA to be investigated for "lack of institutional control"

 

[rrlbees]

Membership is not predicated on good institutional behavior, and no "morals clause" exists.

Morals clause is a word I used, and others have including media, for lack of a better term. To be precise, the NCAA used article 2.4 of their constitution which talks about ethics. It's just easier to say morals clause. Behavior and morals do apply if you are a member institution.

 

[RF2044]

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.

Is that the point? If the NCAA doesn't enforce rules, then what is the point of the organization's existance? To perpetuate their own ability to siphon $$$ away from member instituations / players who actually generate said revenue, in a giant pyramid scheme? No thanks.

I have always been steadfastly against the B5 breaking away--call me a college sports traditionalist. And I always believed that doing so would just widen the gap between the haves and the have nots [and I consider ourselves more of a fit in the latter category for football]. But now I'm not so sure. The NCAA does nothing to inspire confidence in any of their actions, their rules are completely antiquated and out of touch with current realities, they exercise tremendously subjective situational enforcement of rules, they let big time programs off the hook with slaps on the wrist even when they flagrantly and knowingly break the rules, and yet go full bore after certain schools / players over seemingly meaningless violations. So I ask again--what is the point of having the NCAA around if they can't effectively enforce the rules? I'm not suggesting that a breakaway agency would be better or worse, but I have a difficult time believeing that they would be this ineffectual, nor this hypocritical when it comes to what the organization's ostensible mission is.

 

[RF2044]

Ever sense Emmert took over I have been calling for the NCAA to be investigated for "lack of institutional control"

No kidding.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

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.

When it comes to the criminal justice system, I'm all for examining the things that you can do with the offender to reduce the likelihood that they offend again. Sometimes that might mean you don't bring the hammer.

In this case though... Penn State instituting reforms and checks and balances doesn't feel like enough to me. One would hope there's no question that they ceased the behavior that got them in to trouble in the first place - harboring a pedophile. But, you know, it just doesn't impress me that they've refrained from associating with pedophiles, because the thing that got them in to trouble is just so unbelievably awful and so far outside the realm of how an institution "messes up" that the standard of taking in to account a change in behavior just doesn't really apply.

I think you reduce a penalty for two reasons: 1), exemplary behavior warrants a reconsideration of the punitive terms (which I personally feel should NOT have applied in this case, because PSU's behavior doesn't impress me) or 2) you feel that the punishment meted out is excessive (which I feel was not the case, given the entirely unrepentant response by so much of the fanbase). And choosing to do this after the second week of the season boggles the mind.

This is an embarrassment to the NCAA.

 

[RF2044]

When it comes to the criminal justice system, I'm all for examining the things that you can do with the offender to reduce the likelihood that they offend again. Sometimes that might mean you don't bring the hammer.

In this case though... Penn State instituting reforms and checks and balances doesn't feel like enough to me. One would hope there's no question that they ceased the behavior that got them in to trouble in the first place - harboring a pedophile. But, you know, it just doesn't impress me that they've refrained from associating with pedophiles, because the thing that got them in to trouble is just so unbelievably awful and so far outside the realm of how an institution "messes up" that the standard of taking in to account a change in behavior just doesn't really apply.

I think you reduce a penalty for two reasons: 1), exemplary behavior warrants a reconsideration of the punitive terms (which I personally feel should NOT have applied in this case, because PSU's behavior doesn't impress me) or 2) you feel that the punishment meted out is excessive (which I feel was not the case, given the entirely unrepentant response by so much of the fanbase). And choosing to do this after the second week of the season boggles the mind.

This is an embarrassment to the NCAA.

Great post--agree 100%.

 

[retro44]

Grotto just take a good look at who they hired to lead them in the future and the scandals they left behind at their respective schools.

Emmert and Goodell both need to be fired

 

[javadoc]

I don't think that would have happened even if the sanctions didn't end early.

Oh, I know. I've said many times on this forum that I think the program should have been wiped out for at least a generation, if not in absolute terms, then in ability to compete.

I really wish that the reaction from Penn State fans was to say, "Holy cow, this has gone so far beyond the game of football, that even after the directly guilty parties have been punished by law enforcement, I still don't want any part of it. I need to step back and get some perspective on what is truly important, and put down the Penn State football bottle for a while."

And I'm with bees, wish we had found a way to cancel that recent MetLife game. To this day I haven't watched it.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

Grotto just take a good look at who they hired to lead them in the future and the scandals they left behind at their respective schools.

Exactly, Retro.

 

[Eric15]

The students and alumni see THEMSELVES as the victims here because they lost a few schollies and bowl games. That program really deserves far worse.

Based on my own personal interactions with PSU alums (I'm friends with about a half dozen of them), I've found them to be incredibly embarrassed and ashamed by this entire scandal. I understand that's relatively anecdotal and a small sample size, but I personally disagree with the generalization that the entire fanbase thinks of themselves as a victim.

 

[Eric15]

When it comes to the criminal justice system, I'm all for examining the things that you can do with the offender to reduce the likelihood that they offend again. Sometimes that might mean you don't bring the hammer.

In this case though... Penn State instituting reforms and checks and balances doesn't feel like enough to me. One would hope there's no question that they ceased the behavior that got them in to trouble in the first place - harboring a pedophile. But, you know, it just doesn't impress me that they've refrained from associating with pedophiles, because the thing that got them in to trouble is just so unbelievably awful and so far outside the realm of how an institution "messes up" that the standard of taking in to account a change in behavior just doesn't really apply.

I think you reduce a penalty for two reasons: 1), exemplary behavior warrants a reconsideration of the punitive terms (which I personally feel should NOT have applied in this case, because PSU's behavior doesn't impress me) or 2) you feel that the punishment meted out is excessive (which I feel was not the case, given the entirely unrepentant response by so much of the fanbase). And choosing to do this after the second week of the season boggles the mind.

This is an embarrassment to the NCAA.

I respect your thoughts and see where you're coming from, but I guess I just see it in a different light. I think the chances of something like this ever happening against at PSU are extraordinarily low, and that two more years of a bowl ban will not affect anything. 18-22 year old student athletes who had absolutely no involvement with this whatsoever are paying the price.

In what was one of the most disturbing crimes in American history, I personally feel that justice has been served (pending the conviction of the administrators).

 

[HOFCeluck]

When it comes to the criminal justice system, I'm all for examining the things that you can do with the offender to reduce the likelihood that they offend again. Sometimes that might mean you don't bring the hammer.

In this case though... Penn State instituting reforms and checks and balances doesn't feel like enough to me. One would hope there's no question that they ceased the behavior that got them in to trouble in the first place - harboring a pedophile. But, you know, it just doesn't impress me that they've refrained from associating with pedophiles, because the thing that got them in to trouble is just so unbelievably awful and so far outside the realm of how an institution "messes up" that the standard of taking in to account a change in behavior just doesn't really apply.

I think you reduce a penalty for two reasons: 1), exemplary behavior warrants a reconsideration of the punitive terms (which I personally feel should NOT have applied in this case, because PSU's behavior doesn't impress me) or 2) you feel that the punishment meted out is excessive (which I feel was not the case, given the entirely unrepentant response by so much of the fanbase). And choosing to do this after the second week of the season boggles the mind.

This is an embarrassment to the NCAA.

"Well, no children have been raped in the last two years. I think they've learned their lesson."

 

[HOFCeluck]

I respect your thoughts and see where you're coming from, but I guess I just see it in a different light. I think the chances of something like this ever happening against at PSU are extraordinarily low, and that two more years of a bowl ban will not affect anything. 18-22 year old student athletes who had absolutely no involvement with this whatsoever are paying the price.

In what was one of the most disturbing crimes in American history, I personally feel that justice has been served (pending the conviction of the administrators).

I don't buy this at all. They made a choice to attend Penn State, and also had a choice to transfer w/o penalty.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

"Well, no children have been raped in the last two years. I think they've learned their lesson."

That's what it sounds like, right?

 

[RF2044]

I respect your thoughts and see where you're coming from, but I guess I just see it in a different light. I think the chances of something like this ever happening against at PSU are extraordinarily low, and that two more years of a bowl ban will not affect anything. 18-22 year old student athletes who had absolutely no involvement with this whatsoever are paying the price.

In what was one of the most disturbing crimes in American history, I personally feel that justice has been served (pending the conviction of the administrators).

I'm not so sure--because my take [and I own that this is my opinion only] is that the decade-plus long cover up was equally as bad as the crime, given the nature of the crimes themselves. And what led to that cover up was a cultural, isntitutional, systemic breakdown that occured only as a function of a desire to look the other way to preserve the best interests of a sports program and the icon at the helm, to the detriment of children who were being victimized.

How on earth--if they knew or even had an inkling about what Sandusky was alleged to have done--would they let this guy continue to use campus facilities to run his camps after he'd been dismissed under unusual circumstances? And the cover up might not be restricted to the University level--it may also extend to local law enforcement [amongst other] external groups.

So while I agree with some of your earlier perspective--the people who committed the crimes might be gone, dead, imprisoned, etc.--I don't think that the penalties were adequate to impact the culture that facilitated and enabled this nonsense for more than a decade after it was brought to Paterno's and school officials' attention.

The crimes themselves were contemptible. The cover up [and I do not mean this in any way to diminish what happened to those children] might be ever worse, given that so many children over so many years were abused, while the coaching staff, university officials, and law enforcement turned a blind eye in order to protect football interests.

 

[SU2NASA]

Based on my own personal interactions with PSU alums (I'm friends with about a half dozen of them), I've found them to be incredibly embarrassed and ashamed by this entire scandal. I understand that's relatively anecdotal and a small sample size, but I personally disagree with the generalization that the entire fanbase thinks of themselves as a victim.

The Penn State alums I know are taking this as vindication that nothing ever happened at Penn State and they were the victim. Some of them legitimately think that the coverup never happened and that they are the victims of a witch hunt. It boggles my mind.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I respect your thoughts and see where you're coming from, but I guess I just see it in a different light. I think the chances of something like this ever happening against at PSU are extraordinarily low, and that two more years of a bowl ban will not affect anything. 18-22 year old student athletes who had absolutely no involvement with this whatsoever are paying the price.

See, that's the thing though - the probabilities of something like this happening again are already extraordinarily low, but it's not convincing that the punishment brought them closer to zero.

We've seen that, as an institutional body, there is a vocal part of the organization that holds JoePa/football as more holy than sexually violating children. I mean, holy $@#%. So given that this attitude has not been struck down, is it really so off base to think the punishment failed and the chances of "something like this" happening again are actually quite alive? It doesn't have to be the exact same offense - part of the purpose of punishment is to discourage other behaviors too.

And now the punishment has been rescinder, which will further reinforce that in all of this to those that believe it, that PSU was the wronged party. That won't discourage anything.

Let's see how long it takes for people to start clamoring to restore JoePa's wins and statue, given that the damn has broken.

 

[OttoinGrotto]

I'm not so sure--because my take [and I own that this is my opinion only] is that the decade-plus long cover up was equally as bad as the crime. And what led to that cover up was a cultural, isntitutional, systemic breakdown that occured only as a function of a desire to look the other way to preserve the best interests of a sports program and the icon at the helm, to the detriment of children who were being victimized. How on earth--if they knew or even had an inkling about what Sandusky was alleged to have done--would they let this guy continue to use campus facilities to run his camps after he'd been dismissed under unusual circumstances? And the cover up might not be restricted to the University level--it may also extend to local law enforcement [amongst other] external groups.

So while I agree with some of your earlier perspective--the people who committed the crimes are gone, dead, imprisoned, etc.--I don't think that the penalties were adequate to impact the culture that facilitated and enabled this stuff. The crimes themselves were contemptible. The cover up [and I do not mean this in any way to diminish what happened to those children] might be ever worse, given that so many children over so many years were abused, while the coaching staff, university officials, and law enforcement turned a blind eye in order to protect football interests.

Well said, RF.

 

[Cheriehoop]

I respect your thoughts and see where you're coming from, but I guess I just see it in a different light. I think the chances of something like this ever happening against at PSU are extraordinarily low, and that two more years of a bowl ban will not affect anything. 18-22 year old student athletes who had absolutely no involvement with this whatsoever are paying the price.

In what was one of the most disturbing crimes in American history, I personally feel that justice has been served (pending the conviction of the administrators).

What I think is being forgotten is that the PSU football players and staff there had choices to leave/stay or not commit in the first place yet they committed/recommitted to the program well knowing the penalties and punishments for the schools' terrible transgressions. To say that they are paying the price ignores the fact that they willingly chose to pay the price.

 

[javadoc]

I bet Ray (nothing to see here) Gricar loves this decision.

Lest people forget:

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/sandusky-investigator-center-mystery/story?id=14905668

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...nce-only-one-of-many-mysteries-in-psu-scandal

This whole story makes my skin crawl. It stinks to high heaven. Makes me think of horror thrillers where a seemingly normal town turns out to be hiding unspeakable secrets.

 

[RandygoCuse]

What I think is being forgotten is that the PSU football players and staff there had choices to leave/stay or not commit in the first place yet they committed/recommitted to the program well knowing the penalties and punishments for the schools' terrible transgressions. To say that they are paying the price ignores the fact that they willingly chose to pay the price.

You make a legitimate point. I'm not as outraged as some on this board that the sanctions have been lifted, but I agree the bowl ban probably should have been kept in place while giving them the full allotted amount of scholarships.

On another note, the Penn State people I know did not brush this off. Others on the board have mentioned how some alumni are still claiming they were the victims. I really hope this is the case of the idiots being the loudest, not the most populous.

 

[javadoc]

Morals clause is a word I used, and others have including media, for lack of a better term. To be precise, the NCAA used article 2.4 of their constitution which talks about ethics. It's just easier to say morals clause. Behavior and morals do apply if you are a member institution.

Hey, I parsed the NCAA Constitution to find out how they could be charged and hit on just that, back when this first broke. I'm saying that I doubt there would be any enforcement provision for a "morals clause" in any new breakaway P5-type organization. In fact, I suspect that there would be explicit language stating that criminal matters are outside the scope of the organization's jurisdiction, so that this doesn't have to be hashed out again. I would expect all rules and enforcement to be very loose, in fact. And the big boys will throw their money and influence around much more openly and bluntly.

 

[Cheriehoop]

You make a legitimate point. I'm not as outraged as some on this board that the sanctions have been lifted, but I agree the bowl ban probably should have been kept in place while giving them the full allotted amount of scholarship.
On another note, the Penn State people I know did not brush this off. Others on the board have mentioned how some alumni are still claiming they were the victims. I really hope this is the case of the idiots being the loudest, not the most populous.

My singular take is that the reduction has more to do with the most powerful of fans unfortunately. I doubt the everyday loyal fan even collectively didn't have the clout to affect this. There were some very powerful state boosters complaining and outraged by the penalties - the players and staff knew the repercussions and accepted them. Who provoked the change? Who made the case to the NCAA? Hopefully not the same strong politically connected people who prevented the investigation and helped cover-up the crimes in the first place or the conference heads who need a strong Penn State.

 

[Orangepace]

Exactly. On one hand they blast the NCAA because of what PedSt is and got off easy. On the other, it is the same PedSt but people were ok playing them. It's the same enabling university either way.

Devil's advocate here, but I felt like the sanctions were appropriate for the crime and that playing them was more justification of my stance that they were penalized appropriately.