JoePa getting his wins back
- Thread starter Recruiting Violation
- Start date
I get that there is a lot of emotion involved (both sides), but this is the "right" thing to do. Their reasons for the initial punishment were ridiculous. The NCAA does not have moral authority (certainly not anymore), and should have no "jurisdiction" over this issue.
The only real "competitive advantage" I've seen alleged by people is that they should have taken a "huge pr hit" long ago, which, somehow would have put them at a competitive disadvantage (e.g. worse recruiting), but by covering it up they gained a competitive advantage. Imo, that is stretched about as thin as it can get, and even if you buy in to that, it creates that slipperiest of slopes so many people crow about. I hate slippery slope arguments, but for this one it is apt, as these people are calling for MORE authority for the NCAA. If anything, the NCAA should have less authority.
The only real "competitive advantage" I've seen alleged by people is that they should have taken a "huge pr hit" long ago, which, somehow would have put them at a competitive disadvantage (e.g. worse recruiting), but by covering it up they gained a competitive advantage. Imo, that is stretched about as thin as it can get, and even if you buy in to that, it creates that slipperiest of slopes so many people crow about. I hate slippery slope arguments, but for this one it is apt, as these people are calling for MORE authority for the NCAA. If anything, the NCAA should have less authority.
This explains a lot about why you are a KF apologist. No disrespect meant.
This post was edited on 1/16 1:07 PM by eddie4star
This is great. Two posts, both of which felt it necessary to quote mine in the entirety, make no argument whatsoever, no discussion, no substance.
Good ol' HR.
Good ol' HR.
What happened says it all, and my word disgusting is the counter argument and all that is needed.
Wait, the purpose of your post was to say that what occurred, you know the criminal acts, were disgusting?
Are you thinking someone disagrees with you?
Are you thinking someone disagrees with you?
You don't know what you're talking about, as usual. Of course the NCAA has jurisdiction. The whole cover up was for the benefit of the football program. Penn State should have been given the death penalty. If not the NCAA, then who? Big money and lawyers are winning here, not because they're right.
I won't quote your OP because I totally agree with it and only wanted to add a small rant of my own.
I thought it was outrageous 2011-12 when the NCAA came in grandstanding and imposing sanctions in a case that had nothing to do with them. I'm rather pleased to see them get their nuts cut off. YMMV.
Hwk23:
Although you use more words, you still, basically, say nothing. You posters might as well just make everything a poll. A whole thread of "yes", "no", "yes", "no". What would be the point?
Think about it this way, once you've typed your post just think "why?" Then answer it.
But I'll ask you specifically: How was it for the "benefit of the program?" What was the benefit?
On a similar note: If they were just covering it all up (to protect the program) why was JS still around the program?
After answering the above: Are you comfortable giving the NCAA, apparently, unlimited power?
Although you use more words, you still, basically, say nothing. You posters might as well just make everything a poll. A whole thread of "yes", "no", "yes", "no". What would be the point?
Think about it this way, once you've typed your post just think "why?" Then answer it.
But I'll ask you specifically: How was it for the "benefit of the program?" What was the benefit?
On a similar note: If they were just covering it all up (to protect the program) why was JS still around the program?
After answering the above: Are you comfortable giving the NCAA, apparently, unlimited power?
What does "then who" mean? Are you of the opinion it is not, properly, a criminal matter? A State matter? A University matter?
You think the proper authority is a national organization whose purpose is competing fairness?
You think the proper authority is a national organization whose purpose is competing fairness?
Old Joe was the foundation of a program that valued their precious image more than they valued children's innocence. Joe admittedly knew things were wrong and then did the bare minimum to correct it. He could have executed Sandusky in the campus square and won an award. But he didn't- he enabled Sandusky to continue to use his position in Paterno Land to abuse kids. Paterno was a coward.
The cover up isn't necessarily a crime in itself, even if it was despicable. It was done for the benefit of the football program and the main person responsible was the head football coach. That's pretty clearly an NCAA matter. It's much worse than recruiting violations obviously. It's obviously not only a University matter because that would be a conflict of interest.
the coverup protected the program from recruiting disaster and other penalties so of course it matters. anyone claiming otherwise is a pedophile enabler.
It is almost like it never happened with them doing this now. To me they are saying it is ok with what part he had in this. If you want to right the ship keep it the way it was. This shows a man that won 111 games is more important than kids being molested under his regime.
Did he molest these kids, I guess not but not doing anything about it is just as disgusting in my opinion.
Did he molest these kids, I guess not but not doing anything about it is just as disgusting in my opinion.
I am curious if theiowahawkeye is a child molester or related to a child molester because he sure seems to feel sorry for the wrong side of this story.
Also agree and stated that on the day that the showboating Emmert had his presser to announce sanctions. Emmert completely pandered to the angry mob to try to win favor when he and the NCAA were on the rocks. Naked opportunism ploy by Emmert where he totally overstepped his mandate,
Clearly, Emmert and the NCAA were getting destroyed in court or they would never retreat like this.
Where crimes were committed, the justice system should put criminals in prison. NCAA is all about violations of their rules.
Clearly, Emmert and the NCAA were getting destroyed in court or they would never retreat like this.
Where crimes were committed, the justice system should put criminals in prison. NCAA is all about violations of their rules.
I guess I shouldn't be surprised by the attack, but a little surprised the mods let it stand.
Some of you just can't disassociate the elements of what is being discussed here.
"What happened was disgusting" =\= NCAA jurisdiction.
This whole thing was about emotion and the NCAA was pandering exactly to the posters denigrating me in this thread. Their action made you feel better about it, obviously it worked.
The theory that this coverup was to save recruiting has no legs, imo, you could stretch that excuse to every. single. case. Hell, hindsight showed it to be false, their recruiting was not devastated.
Try an analogous scenario. Lane Kidfin catches his wife cheating, he bashes her brain in, tells the police it was an intruder. But he told Saban that night what happened.
HOW/WHY is that an NCAA matter? Because they coach?
Some of you just can't disassociate the elements of what is being discussed here.
"What happened was disgusting" =\= NCAA jurisdiction.
This whole thing was about emotion and the NCAA was pandering exactly to the posters denigrating me in this thread. Their action made you feel better about it, obviously it worked.
The theory that this coverup was to save recruiting has no legs, imo, you could stretch that excuse to every. single. case. Hell, hindsight showed it to be false, their recruiting was not devastated.
Try an analogous scenario. Lane Kidfin catches his wife cheating, he bashes her brain in, tells the police it was an intruder. But he told Saban that night what happened.
HOW/WHY is that an NCAA matter? Because they coach?
Uh, because the ENTIRE UNIVERSITY CREATED AN ENVIRONMENT WHERE A CHILD RAPIST OPERATED FOR YEARS WITH IMPUNITY. The sports program was directly responsible for making it possible for Sandusky to get away with monstrous behavior. I applauded the NCAA for taking the stance this is unacceptable. No longer.
"Could this possibly have been the first time he'd heard anything of the sort about Sandusky? "It may have been discussed in my presence, something else about somebody,'' Paterno said. "I don't know."
Yeah right Joe.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/she-the-people
This. Apparently, theIowaHawk would prefer no punishment for one of the most despicable cover-ups in history. PSU won't accept the penalties and take responsibility so not much has changed there. It's just more evidence of an institution that lacks integrity.
This post was edited on 1/17 3:18 PM by hwk23
Also agree with Iowa Hawk. Even if Joe was the pedophile coach, doesn't make any sense to take wins away, punish the offender by putting him in jail to rot.
1st it was covered up to protect not only the University image
2nd it was covered up to protect JO PA's image
3rd this meant it was covered up to protect the FB programs image
4th FB facilities were used where the molesting occurred and kept occurring for 15 years.
5th every thing was done on University property in the and covered up in the name of protecting every thing connected to the FB program
their Presiden at that time made a deal with the NCAA to keep PEDO U from getting a 4 year DP. it was either the FB program or the whole University losing their accredidation. a death penalty for a college,
that is what should have happened in the 1st place.
screw their pathetic excuse for University and anybody that feels sorry or supports them.
2nd it was covered up to protect JO PA's image
3rd this meant it was covered up to protect the FB programs image
4th FB facilities were used where the molesting occurred and kept occurring for 15 years.
5th every thing was done on University property in the and covered up in the name of protecting every thing connected to the FB program
their Presiden at that time made a deal with the NCAA to keep PEDO U from getting a 4 year DP. it was either the FB program or the whole University losing their accredidation. a death penalty for a college,
that is what should have happened in the 1st place.
screw their pathetic excuse for University and anybody that feels sorry or supports them.
They should not have been taken away, nor should the NCAA have collected $60M. This wasn't an athletic issue, let alone a football one. The win give backs and now the conditions on what the NCCA can do with money proves that out. The state of Pennsylvania and the victims should have come down hard on the university and administration.
JR:
I guess I would urge you to consider what wouldn't fall under that same category? It is a ridiculously vague term they use to try to extend their authority to begin with. Should every circumstance of non-active reporting/coverup/whatever be controlled by the NCAA?
As the poster above points out, the victims and State should have hammered the bad actors, including the university. The simple-minded posters here show their colors by claiming that anyone who believes it a non-NCAA issue is somehow supporting the abhorrent act.
I guess I would urge you to consider what wouldn't fall under that same category? It is a ridiculously vague term they use to try to extend their authority to begin with. Should every circumstance of non-active reporting/coverup/whatever be controlled by the NCAA?
As the poster above points out, the victims and State should have hammered the bad actors, including the university. The simple-minded posters here show their colors by claiming that anyone who believes it a non-NCAA issue is somehow supporting the abhorrent act.
Slip:
I'm not surprised you couldn't answer my question and discuss the analogy, to truly debate/discuss a topic one must actually understand the issues, which you clearly do not. Your caps-lock fueled anger doesn't even explain why the NCAA should have jurisdiction or authority.
Your simplistic argument is this:
"Child-rape occurred. Child-rape is bad. The entire university (whatever that means) covered it up, therefore they should be punished. They were a sports program"
"....therefore they should be punished."
Amazingly, you don't understand that (most) everyone agrees with you. I certainly agree with this. But, then you claim that it is the NCAA's purview to do so. Why? Because they deal with athletics? Because you believe it created a competitive advantage?
What are your thoughts on the analogy I posted?
How about another one: A trader on Wall Street turns out to be a serial killer of young women. His bosses at Goldman know about it, don't report it/cover it up and keep him on staff.
Should the SEC (securities, not sports) fine Goldman and invalidate past trades? Why?
I'm not surprised you couldn't answer my question and discuss the analogy, to truly debate/discuss a topic one must actually understand the issues, which you clearly do not. Your caps-lock fueled anger doesn't even explain why the NCAA should have jurisdiction or authority.
Your simplistic argument is this:
"Child-rape occurred. Child-rape is bad. The entire university (whatever that means) covered it up, therefore they should be punished. They were a sports program"
"....therefore they should be punished."
Amazingly, you don't understand that (most) everyone agrees with you. I certainly agree with this. But, then you claim that it is the NCAA's purview to do so. Why? Because they deal with athletics? Because you believe it created a competitive advantage?
What are your thoughts on the analogy I posted?
How about another one: A trader on Wall Street turns out to be a serial killer of young women. His bosses at Goldman know about it, don't report it/cover it up and keep him on staff.
Should the SEC (securities, not sports) fine Goldman and invalidate past trades? Why?
Obviously, it is a lack of institutional control. The cover-up was an attempt to save the football program's reputation and therefore the football program should be punished. If it was a recruiting violation, for example, the whole program would be penalized, not just the employee or employees responsible. Same principle should apply here.
This whole process of protesting the NCAA was started by a state senator who has the backing of the nutjobs voting for him. The NCAA really has nothing to gain and probably more to lose by standing up to the legal pressure, so they were bound to cave and make a deal. It's really disgusting. They aren't winning because they are right, only because of the persistent whining of the football nutjob constituents in the area.
You are welcome to your opinions, but this one is largely
head-in-the-sand-ish. The NCAA "only" gave in because of this state
senator and nutjobs? Right. How'd USC do with as big of a backing?
You truly believe there is no possibility that the NCAA believed they
overstepped their bounds and needing to reign it back in? There are
plenty of articles out there, many with actual records from people in
power. Like this one.
But, rest assured, the NCAA's levying of sanctions would have certainly stopped any other University from covering up child-rape....but now I'm sure it will just start right back up. Shame on the NCAA!
It didn't have anything to do with football. I can't say whether the NCAA rules govern criminal behavior, but I don't think they do. Institutional control pertains to managing athletics and student athletes. The state, the feds, someone but the NCAA should have put the hammer down, not the NCAA. They should have done something to Iowa basketball for the second Pierce incident then. At least he was still a part of the athletic department.
Well stated, and I will add:
See this article, just the very first link I clicked after googling.
The NCAA looks at which rules are in place, and if the rules are properly enforced by compliance officials, according to the University of Illinois.
An institution is not considered to be in charge of the actions of
individuals. If a booster is committing violations, and the school has
forbidden those acts and properly reprimands the individual, then
institutional control is considered properly exhibited.
If a school doesn't have a plan in place for preventing that booster
from committing that violation, or does not provide corrective action
when learning of the act, then the NCAA would consider that to be a lack
of institutional control.
It then summarizes a few incidences, of which most people remember USC:
Overview: A football
player (Reggie Bush) receives financial assistance and benefits from
sports agents. A representative of the university gives impermissible
benefits to a basketball student athlete (O.J. Mayo). A tennis player is
allowed to use an athletic department long distance code to make
international phone calls. The football team hires a consultant, causing
it to exceed the allowed number of coaches.
School officials knew boosters involved had committed earlier NCAA violations, but allowed them to work with players.
To put it in my terms: The NCAA has specific rules regarding what isn't allowed in regards to recruiting, payment to players, competitive-advantage stuff. When someone violates that, who isn't a member of the AD, it becomes more tricky, because the NCAA can't/shouldn't go around punishing schools for conduct it simply can't control. So, naturally, the NCAA looks at what the school did about it once it found out (or what safeguards it had in place before hand), and whether they had "institutional control" or even "failure to monitor."
This stuff is in place so that coaches don't simply say, "I don't know what my athletes do once they leave practice....sure I see them getting in to Mercedes Benzs, but it isn't my place to ask."
According to the NCAA, USC was aware specific boosters had violated specific rules, and still allowed them around the players without repercussion. They went beyond failure to monitor, because they knew about it, and they didn't do anything to try to control it...hence the lack of institutional control.
But, even with all of this discussion, if one believes that the NCAA should, in fact, be the moral authority for all schools, simply because people participate in sports, their decision has already been made. It still all boils down to competitive advantage. You can shoehorn lots of things in to lack of institutional control, if you believe they fall under competitive advantage. This is my strongest, and most important point. ANYTHING could fall under the purview of the NCAA in that definition. Why does anyone, other than the NCAA, want that?
