There's not a penalty to harsh for PSU!

[ukvols]

Here's a shocker for you.... I agree with all of this. Which makes it even worse. It goes to show that the coverup was even more pervasive than we've been led to believe at this point. And the ONLY reason to cover up crimes of this magnitude is to protect the football program and the reputation of the institution an the persons involved however peripherally.

Spot on.

Then it all comes back to whether or not the NCAA should be involved.

The fact that the motivation was to protect the football program should be enough for the NCAA to be involved.

If there is nothing in the NCAA's famously extra large rulebook that allows an institutional coverup of criminal acts to be considered a violation of NCAA rules if the motivation was related to a sports program, then the rulebook isn't long enough, because that should be covered.

That said, I agree with you that any NCAA punishment would hit none of the actual wrongdoers. I would much rather see the football program be used for some good, then be shut down.

 

[bamawriter]

So you're basically saying that this will have (or wouldn't have, then) any influence on whether a recruit would choose to go to PSU? Riiiiight.....

I'll say it again..... If even ONE recruit chooses (or would have chosen) to go somewhere else because of this then PSU DID gain a competitive advantage. How is this hard to understand?

Who is that one recruit? Have you tracked him down?

Many recruits MIGHT have chosen not to go to PSU as a result of this scandal. But since there is absolutely no way to get from 'might not have' to 'certainly wouldn't have', there is no way to prove that PSU was advantaged by the coverup.

 

[bamawriter]

The three juniors at the cookout were already committed to Tennessee, and two of them ended up not coming. So, there was no measurable benefit. The cookout MIGHT have helped retain the lone recruit Pearl managed to keep committed, but that's impossible to know for sure. Therefore, there was no "measurable benefit" there. There was an NCAA violation but no measurable benefit.

A coach could pay a kid to come to School X. The kid could take the money, and could choose to go somewhere that never offered him a dime. School X still committed a violation.

Just because you don't succeed in spite of the unfair advantage doesn't mean you didn't have an advantage.

 

[vols-1]

This is the thing for me. All of the main players in this story are no longer a part of the university. Punishing the university when the people who now work there had nothing to do with it doesn't seem right to me.

If it was that easy then every school would just clean house every time they got caught red handed. Its like finding religion in jail.

 

[GhostVol]

Who is that one recruit? Have you tracked him down?

Many recruits MIGHT have chosen not to go to PSU as a result of this scandal. But since there is absolutely no way to get from 'might not have' to 'certainly wouldn't have', there is no way to prove that PSU was advantaged by the coverup.

You're either being incredibly naive (at best) or willfully obtuse. You know, without a doubt, that there would have been recruits that wouldn't want to be associated with Pedophile State University.

Just remember..... Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

 

[orange parmejohn]

This is the thing for me. All of the main players in this story are no longer a part of the university. Punishing the university when the people who now work there had nothing to do with it doesn't seem right to me.

we got probation for what Kiffin did while at the university. no matter who dug the well, the university has to drink the water.

 

[bamawriter]

If it was that easy then every school would just clean house every time they got caught red handed. Its like finding religion in jail.

There's a difference. The NCAA is limited in its ability to punish individuals. Aside from show cause orders, all the NCAA can really do is punish the institution and hope that the guilty individuals feel part of the pain.

In the PSU case, the NCAA has no concern that the guilty individuals will avoid punishment.

 

[508mikey]

This is the thing for me. All of the main players in this story are no longer a part of the university. Punishing the university when the people who now work there had nothing to do with it doesn't seem right to me.

The players could transfer W/O sitting out a season -- Unless the Board of Trustees all resign, IMO they will get shut down.

 

[bamawriter]

You're either being incredibly naive (at best) or willfully obtuse. You know, without a doubt, that there would have been recruits that wouldn't want to be associated with Pedophile State University.

Just remember..... Absence of evidence is NOT evidence of absence.

I could just as easily argue that seeing The Legendary Joe Paterno turn in his longtime friend in order to protect the children of Central Pennsylvania would have convinced recruits to go there. You cannot know what would have happened. Hindsight is not 20/20 in this case.

 

[bamawriter]

we got probation for what Kiffin did while at the university. no matter who dug the well, the university has to drink the water.

I thought you only got probation for Pearl. I thought you pretty much skated on the Kiffin stuff.

 

[bamawriter]

The players could transfer W/O sitting out a season -- Unless the Board of Trustees all resign, IMO they will get shut down.

What can the athletes in the other programs who won't be able to stay afloat without football do?

What about the opponents on PSU's schedule who would have to scramble to find replacements?

What about PSU's TV partners who will lose millions?

What about the owner of the shops, restaurants, and hotels in State College who won't be able to stay open without a football season?


What can all of those folks do?

 

[ukvols]

A coach could pay a kid to come to School X. The kid could take the money, and could choose to go somewhere that never offered him a dime. School X still committed a violation.

Just because you don't succeed in spite of the unfair advantage doesn't mean you didn't have an advantage.

I agree with you that a violation is a violation.

But, I disagree with your apparent opinion that the PSU situation is the only time the NCAA must find proof that an advantage was gained before the NCAA can punish them.

If the NCAA decides PSU's coverup is an NCAA violation, perhaps because of the reasons I have been giving, you seem to be saying the NCAA must then also prove that an advantage or measurable benefit was attained. But, when someone brings up another NCAA case, you say that it doesn't matter if there was no benefit.

Whether or not PSU's football program actually was better off on the field from 2001-2011 because of the coverup is no more important than whether or not Jordan McCrae chose to stick with Tennessee because of the quality of meat at the cookout, while the other two players decommitted.

 

[ukvols]

I could just as easily argue that seeing The Legendary Joe Paterno turn in his longtime friend in order to protect the children of Central Pennsylvania would have convinced recruits to go there. You cannot know what would have happened. Hindsight is not 20/20 in this case.

And it doesn't matter at all what would have happened had there been no coverup. What matters is that they attempted to benefit the football program by covering this up.

But, I agree with you about whether the death penalty should be given.

 

[bamawriter]

If the NCAA decides PSU's coverup is an NCAA violation, perhaps because of the reasons I have been giving, you seem to be saying the NCAA must then also prove that an advantage or measurable benefit was attained. But, when someone brings up another NCAA case, you say that it doesn't matter if there was no benefit.

Whether or not PSU's football program actually was better off on the field from 2001-2011 because of the coverup is no more important than whether or not Jordan McCrae chose to stick with Tennessee because of the quality of meat at the cookout, while the other two players decommitted.

Actually, I've been arguing that there was still a benefit, even if it didn't result in the player coming to the school that cheated.

There are those that are arguing that it's a violation, even if it's not described in the bylaws, because PSU received an unfair advantage. I'm simply saying that there is no way to know that.

I don't think the NCAA has to prove that an advantage was gained in order for something to be a violation. I think that if it's in the bylaws, and you disobeyed it, it's a violation. And if it's not in the bylaws it's not a violation, even if you might have gained an advantage.

 

[bamawriter]

And it doesn't matter at all what would have happened had there been no coverup. What matters is that they attempted to benefit the football program by covering this up.

No, what matters is whether or not they committed an NCAA violation. Just because the football program was the motive doesn't mean the crime constitutes an NCAA violation.

 

[ukvols]

Actually, I've been arguing that there was still a benefit, even if it didn't result in the player coming to the school that cheated.

There are those that are arguing that it's a violation, even if it's not described in the bylaws, because PSU received an unfair advantage. I'm simply saying that there is no way to know that.

I don't think the NCAA has to prove that an advantage was gained in order for something to be a violation. I think that if it's in the bylaws, and you disobeyed it, it's a violation. And if it's not in the bylaws it's not a violation, even if you might have gained an advantage.

In that case, I disagree with whoever is saying PSU committed an NCAA violation because they gained an advantage. That's not the reason that I see a violation.

 

[ukvols]

No, what matters is whether or not they committed an NCAA violation. Just because the football program was the motive doesn't mean the crime constitutes an NCAA violation.

And, as I said before, if this isn't an NCAA violation, and it may not be, then it's unfortunate that the NCAA has never contemplated the possibility of a football program being "protected" and thus possibly benefitting from its football coach and institution covering up criminal acts.

Basically, I'm saying that if this is truly not within the NCAA's scope due to what their bylaws say, then there's a problem with the bylaws, because it should be.

Every component of LOIC is easily met except the requirement of an NCAA violation. I think the motivation to "protect" the football program should be enough to at least read in an NCAA violation. Others may disagree.

 

[bamawriter]

In that case, I disagree with whoever is saying PSU committed an NCAA violation because they gained an advantage. That's not the reason that I see a violation.

Fair enough. I just don't think you can cite any article from the list of violations that will support your theory.

 

[bamawriter]

And, as I said before, if this isn't an NCAA violation, and it may not be, then it's unfortunate that the NCAA has never contemplated the possibility of a football program being "protected" and thus possibly benefitting from its football coach and institution covering up criminal acts.

Basically, I'm saying that if this is truly not within the NCAA's scope due to what their bylaws say, then there's a problem with the bylaws, because it should be.

Every component of LOIC is easily met except the requirement of an NCAA violation. I think the motivation to "protect" the football program should be enough to at least read in an NCAA violation. Others may disagree.

That makes a lot of sense.

But I keep coming back to the fact that the NCAA bylaws are not reflective of the law, and the reverse is also true. Would amending the NCAA bylaws to reflect the law be good for college athletics? I don't think it would be. I simply do not think that the NCAA leveling any kind of punishment on PSU would be helpful. The guilty wouldn't be affected, the victims would not be helped, and the innocent could get devastated.

 

[ukvols]

Fair enough. I just don't think you can cite any article from the list of violations that will support your theory.

You might be right. But, if there's nothing in that list, then they need to add one, in case there's ever a 'next time' at some other school.

They could make it a violation for a member of a coaching staff or the AD or the leaders of the institution to engage in a pattern of willfully violating the NCAA's Code of Ethics for the purpose of benefitting an athletics program. Something like that. Require a pattern and perhaps even define "pattern," so that it's not an NCAA violation every time an assistant coach cuts in line ahead of another school's coach to get into a high school gym.

 

[bamawriter]

You might be right. But, if there's nothing in that list, then they need to add one, in case there's ever a 'next time' at some other school.

They could make it a violation for a member of a coaching staff or the AD or the leaders of the institution to engage in a pattern of willfully violating the NCAA's Code of Ethics for the purpose of benefitting an athletics program. Something like that. Require a pattern and perhaps even define "pattern," so that it's not an NCAA violation every time an assistant coach cuts in line ahead of another school's coach to get into a high school gym.

The NCAA has often had issues with knowing where to draw the line.

 

[ukvols]

That makes a lot of sense.

But I keep coming back to the fact that the NCAA bylaws are not reflective of the law, and the reverse is also true. Would amending the NCAA bylaws to reflect the law be good for college athletics? I don't think it would be. I simply do not think that the NCAA leveling any kind of punishment on PSU would be helpful. The guilty wouldn't be affected, the victims would not be helped, and the innocent could get devastated.

This is where you and I agree and disagree at the same time.

Our disagreement is that I think this should be within the NCAA's scope.

Our agreement is that it would be best for the NCAA to do nothing here and let the courts, the institution, the DOE, etc., handle it.

BUT, if the institution does nothing else about this going forward but play football, then I would be much more likely to want to see an NCAA punishment. That's a murky issue though - whether or not the NCAA should give an ultimatum.

Of course, there are rumors that they gave UT a Fire Pearl or else ultimatum.

 

[bamawriter]

I wouldn't have a problem if the NCAA offered to assist PSU in formulating an appropriate response re: self-imposed sanctions. But I think PSU needs to be the ones imposing the sanctions.

 

[508mikey]

What can the athletes in the other programs who won't be able to stay afloat without football do?

What about the opponents on PSU's schedule who would have to scramble to find replacements?

What about PSU's TV partners who will lose millions?

What about the owner of the shops, restaurants, and hotels in State College who won't be able to stay open without a football season?


What can all of those folks do?

Maybe the same thing New York did when the Dodgers and Giants left town

 

[orangesparkles]

Am I the only one who thinks you can't take the Joe Paterno statue down? Joe Paterno is so intrinsically linked to Penn State that cutting all ties with the man means you literally just threw away your football history. It just makes no sense to pretend that the last 45 years just didn't happen.