I didnt take any discussion down, obviously now I know how you stand.

Regarding the notion that schools would just constantly cheat if they could clean house and move one, I disagree wholeheartedly.

As things stand now, when programs get caught cheating, the coaches and AD's that did it/allowed it to happen, can either stick around through the sanction and continue their actions afterwards, or leave and avoid them altogether.

I think if the NCAA imposed sanctions on coaches and AD administrators, they would have more impact.

Why would an AD allow cheating to happen under his watch if he knows it will cost him his job? Furthermore, have the sanctions follow the person rather than the institution and the AD knows that if their program gets caught cheating, he gets fired, and is ineligible for employment at any NCAA member institution for a minimum of say 5 or 7 years, or even a lifetime ban for particularly egregious offenses, and we can all sit back watch coaches and AD's become super sleuths, rooting out an punishing cheating on their own to protect their own careers.

That's a lot more effective at discouraging cheating than a scholarship reduction and a couple years of postseason bans. A major program will continue as normal through those sanction, look at PSU and USC right now. Both programs are rolling just fine through their "sanctions", and are in position to compete for championships again as soon as their sanctions expire. Ohio State a couple years ago is another example.

If you want department's to behave responsibly, then you have to focus the punishments on those who have the authority to prevent cheating from the get go. Scholarship reductions and bowl bans are empty punishments, regardless of the nature of the infraction, that mostly affect innocent students and student athletes, while allowing those responsible to skip town and carry on with their careers. Why anyone thinks those punishments are "harsh" or in any way appropriate or effective is beyond me.

I can't be arsed by any Big 10 team. Just not worth the effort.

This is not a discussion of the severity of the crime. Everyone knows it was horrific. The problem is people are emotionally impacted by the crime itself and are unable to think rationally. It's understandable. It's human. If the crime is bad enough, your natural reaction is to stand up and try to do something. Unfortunately, this was mixed with the general bafoonery of NCAA.

Can we at least agree that the severity of the crime in itself doesn't justify wrongheaded decisions?

quote:

---

Penn State has paid for there crimes, and will literally pay for them.

---

*their

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

Its also about punishing a culture that allowed it to persist. Folks went to jail and were fired, but is also punishes the winning-at-all-costs culture that is dominant among a lot of programs (increasingly our own). To some extent, it IS about setting a precedent and making an example. What this does is set the precedence that if you are really sorry and make a concerted effort to seek change, that punishments don't have to stick. Is that a message that you are ok with?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

Its also about punishing a culture that allowed it to persist. Folks went to jail and were fired, but is also punishes the winning-at-all-costs culture that is dominant among a lot of programs (increasingly our own). To some extent, it IS about setting a precedent and making an example. What this does is set the precedence that if you are really sorry and make a concerted effort to seek change, that punishments don't have to stick. Is that a message that you are ok with?

---

It's not the NCAA's job to regulate fanhood. It's the responsibility of the coaches and administrators to ensure that the fans don't control the program. If they fail to do their jobs, then they're the ones that should be punished. Trying to punish fans or some "culture of coverup" (the concept of which is a creation of sports reporters to try and draw attention to their articles in the wake of the events) is like punishing a dog for being a dog.

And touchdown, I'm 100% on your side on this one, I'm not wasting my time arguing the point because as you said, people's emotions run high, and they don't think logically about the consequences. People just see a horrendous violation, and think that the harshest possible punishment is necessary, even if that punishment goes beyond the bounds of an association charged with enforcing fair competition in athletic events.

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

Yes it makes sense. Your viewpoint does not.

You could make your lame argument for ANY sanction placed by he NCAA. The violators are always out the door after the hammer comes down. The unique nature of Penn State should be taken into consideration and the sanctions should have HUGE teeth and shouldn't be negotiable in any way. They don't "forgive and forget" recruiting violations because the recruits aren't there anymore, but a culture that turned a blind eye to a serial pedophile gets special treatment? Really?

The reduction of these penalties is a joke. And so is the NCAA.

It's embarrassing where priorities lie here.

Penn State should have gotten the ****ing death penalty.

I honestly believe it was more about denial than covering for the sake of football. At least as far as the coaches go. If it was about covering up they wouldn't have continued to allow him on campus with kids. They were in denial about a friend they thought was incapable of doing something so horrible.

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

You punish the program either way

Stop being soft

I think both the individual and the institution has to be punished. The individual punishment should stick with them wherever they go, but at the same time, you can't just leave institutions with the opportunity to hire shady coaches, look the other way, and then cut any and all losses by firing the guy when he gets caught. Both need a firm *****slap.

quote:

---

nm

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

I suck at interweb.

---

---

So when a program gets caught cheating with paying 1 player. Just hammer the player, not the program?

You can't have it both ways. The program is always the focal point of the punishment.

quote:

---

I think both the individual and the institution has to be punished. The individual punishment should stick with them wherever they go, but at the same time, you can't just leave institutions with the opportunity to hire shady coaches, look the other way, and then cut any and all losses by firing the guy when he gets caught. Both need a firm *****slap.

---

You're half right. But it's not an "institution" that hires a coach, it's the AD. This whole focus on the logo rather than the individual thing is what allows the offenders to skip town.

In your example, if the AD knows that the coach has a history of cheating, and that if the coach cheats, his career in college athletics will come to an end, he's going to think real hard about hiring that coach, and he he's going to watch whatever coach he hires like a hawk to protect his own administrative career.

But that would be too effective, and the NCAA doesn't want to be effective, they want to make it look like they're taking action while not disrupting their cash flow.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

Its also about punishing a culture that allowed it to persist. Folks went to jail and were fired, but is also punishes the winning-at-all-costs culture that is dominant among a lot of programs (increasingly our own). To some extent, it IS about setting a precedent and making an example. What this does is set the precedence that if you are really sorry and make a concerted effort to seek change, that punishments don't have to stick. Is that a message that you are ok with?

---

It's not the NCAA's job to regulate fanhood. It's the responsibility of the coaches and administrators to ensure that the fans don't control the program. If they fail to do their jobs, then they're the ones that should be punished. Trying to punish fans or some "culture of coverup" (the concept of which is a creation of sports reporters to try and draw attention to their articles in the wake of the events) is like punishing a dog for being a dog.

And touchdown, I'm 100% on your side on this one, I'm not wasting my time arguing the point because as you said, people's emotions run high, and they don't think logically about the consequences. People just see a horrendous violation, and think that the harshest possible punishment is necessary, even if that punishment goes beyond the bounds of an association charged with enforcing fair competition in athletic events.

---

I don't think my arguments been guided by emotion. There's the criminal aspect of this and there's the institutional cover-up. The cover-up enabled more criminal activity but nevertheless please rationally explain how this doesn't get any more institutional than president, AD, and head football coach? Forget the fans, boosters, and assistant coach if you want.

Sandusky's crimes were just that: crimes. A criminal matter for the police and the criminal justice system. The NCAA had no business getting involved.

Not that they were dirty, but did our AD fire Sherman and hire Sumlin? When it comes to big-time programs, it's not as simple as punish the AD too. There is an entire culture that fosters an environment for these guys to operate in.

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

Soooo you should punish those that weren't there? That makes sense...

---

Its also about punishing a culture that allowed it to persist. Folks went to jail and were fired, but is also punishes the winning-at-all-costs culture that is dominant among a lot of programs (increasingly our own). To some extent, it IS about setting a precedent and making an example. What this does is set the precedence that if you are really sorry and make a concerted effort to seek change, that punishments don't have to stick. Is that a message that you are ok with?

---

It's not the NCAA's job to regulate fanhood. It's the responsibility of the coaches and administrators to ensure that the fans don't control the program. If they fail to do their jobs, then they're the ones that should be punished. Trying to punish fans or some "culture of coverup" (the concept of which is a creation of sports reporters to try and draw attention to their articles in the wake of the events) is like punishing a dog for being a dog.

And touchdown, I'm 100% on your side on this one, I'm not wasting my time arguing the point because as you said, people's emotions run high, and they don't think logically about the consequences. People just see a horrendous violation, and think that the harshest possible punishment is necessary, even if that punishment goes beyond the bounds of an association charged with enforcing fair competition in athletic events.

---

I don't think my arguments been guided by emotion. There's the criminal aspect of this and there's the institutional cover-up. The cover-up enabled more criminal activity but nevertheless please rationally explain how this doesn't get any more institutional than president, AD, and head football coach? Forget the fans, boosters, and assistant coach if you want.

---

The cover up is a criminal act in itself. Everyone who knew should face criminal charges, and they are. This was a concerted effort by a handful of individuals to prevent the rest of the university from finding out. If the NCAA ensures that those responsible never take any part in NCAA sanctioned athletics ever again, they will have done their job. Anything past that is a matter for the courts and the Pennsylvania legislature in reforming the administrative structure of PSU to prevent this sort of thing from ever occurring again in the future, not the NCAA.

quote:

---

The NCAA had no business getting involved.

---

Insert image regarding going "full retard". I still suck at interweb.

So instead of offering a cogent argument in refutation of my statement you attempt to make a sophomoric "funny picture response" and fail at doing even that?

Hey atleast he owned up to his mistake and didn't cover it up... Penn State could take a lesson from him

quote:

---

Not that they were dirty, but did our AD fire Sherman and hire Sumlin? When it comes to big-time programs, it's not as simple as punish the AD too. There is an entire culture that fosters an environment for these guys to operate in.

---

Technically yes, the AD did. If an AD is willing to let others make their decisions for them, then they can suffer the consequences. If they're put in that situation they can either assert their authority as the head of the department like they're supposed to, or resign and find another job. A good AD won't stay at a schools that puts them in that kind of situation, and if a program can't keep a good AD, they'll never maintain maintain a successful program. It'll bing the balance of power back to its rightful position.

quote:

---

So instead of offering a cogent argument in refutation of my statement you attempt to make a sophomoric "funny picture response" and fail at doing even that?

---

Your response doesn't deserve a cogent argument.

Mad props to Coupland boy. I disagree with you, but I respect your argument. I think this is just a case where reasonable people are going to disagree. However, the "burn down the school" sentiment is a bit disappointing from some. (zoo gonna zoo)

quote:

---

Says that he agrees that reducing the sanctions on Penn State was appropriate. All of the people involved are gone.

WTF is wrong with people? Bad form Kirk. Of all the scenarios to reduce sanctions, this isn't one of them.

---

Say the person in your position before you cost the company millions of dollars and government sanctions. That person was fired and prosecuted. Do you think it's right you and future employees are punished because of the mistake?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Says that he agrees that reducing the sanctions on Penn State was appropriate. All of the people involved are gone.

WTF is wrong with people? Bad form Kirk. Of all the scenarios to reduce sanctions, this isn't one of them.

---

Say the person in your position before you cost the company millions of dollars and government sanctions. That person was fired and prosecuted. Do you think it's right you and future employees are punished because of the mistake?

---

If the institution turned a blind eye for the sake of keeping their reputation intact, then yes its fair. These types of mistakes should have widespread consequences for a reason.

The mission of the NCAA is the regulation of college athletics in order to promote safety and fairness.

It's not the National Defense Against Pederasty Association.

That's... the police and the courts. Which put Sandusky in jail.

A great many people in this thread are having trouble with the difference between criminal law and a private, voluntary regulatory association founded to maintain the rules of fair play and player safety in college athletics.

quote:

---

This is a unique case in that the cover-up was to avoid damage

---

I don't agree that this is true. Paterno simply wasn't going to blow the whistle on Sandusky for anything. He didn't really care what he was doing. And Paterno had the PSU admin by the nuts so they weren't going to do anything. The head-in-the-sand attitude had nothing to do with keeping PSU off any news or NCAA radar and everything to do with keeping Sandusky employed by the university, or at least, protecting his access to facilities.

The reason for this whole thing, beyond the specific actions of Sandusky, were Paterno's indifference and his support by the spineless idiots in administration -- which Paterno got from PSU's fans' undying loyalty reserved for spiritual figures. So while I don't think the NCAA had jurisdiction here, I couldn't care less how much the PSU faithful, particularly those Paterno suck-asses, suffer.

Companies enforce an ethical standard outside of the judicial system. Several entities and associations enforce their own private rules with regards to ethics that are outside of the judicial system. The NCAA is an association that can enforce their own rules with regards to ethics. Personally, it is this authority that I am arguing they should have enforced. Obviously they felt like it was too much, but what I am (and I think many who share my opinion) arguing is that their private authority within the realm of this association should have been upheld. This has nothing to do with the judicial system... its what the NCAA should have done within this association.

If Joe Pa had actually believed that Sandusky and was abusing boys he would have put a stop to it.

quote:

---

Acting like Paterno wasn't the emperor of the Penn State program for fifty years. He died too soon. Paterno deserved to live to see the sanctions. If he were still alive, I'd wager the NCAA wouldn't have backed down as fast.

And Penn State should have gotten the death penalty in the first place. Few other acts signal "lack of institutional control" than the administration's active participation in a criminal enterprise.

But as Cyndi Lauper sang, "Money changes everything." Penn State was just too big to fail.

---

quote:

---

It was stupid to punish the university. Pay for play and other crap like that is cheating in order to gain an advantage on the field, so you punish them in that same arena.

What happened at PSU was a criminal act that had nothing to do with football and those that were criminally negligent were punished.

---

Respectfully disagree. The coach and AD refused to report the abuse in order to save face and continue to attract recruits

the football program at Penn St became powerful enough to cover up unspeakable crimes committed by its' employees.

Everyone from Penn taxpayers to politicans to school administrators...and yes to the NCAA has an interest in seeing this injustice rectified - NOT ONLY THE CRIMES COMMITTED, BUT THE CULTURE THAT ENABLED IT...and NCAA needs to make an example out of Penn St.

Death penalty is an approrpiate response - esp considering the conditions under which death penalty was prev applied to SMU. (no comparison - Penn St situation is light years worse)

I dont understand how this isnt obvious.

quote:

---

Coupland boy - I appreciate your reasoned response. However, I personally think it's a stretch. I think the analogy would be if Tom Osborne hypothetically shot someone on the Nebraska campus and Pellini possibly knew about it and didn't fully report it. In my mind, it has nothing to do with football or the program. For goodness sake, Sandusky hadn't been a coach there in years.

Anyway, I know I'm in the minority on this one, but it's such a strange case that I have a hard time thinking this is a NCAA matter. It seems like it should be a straight-up case for Johnny Law to throw the book at these bastages - not the joke that is the NCAA. I was disgusted by what I thought was grandstanding by the NCAA in the face of a tragedy.

---

Not true. Sandusky has been accused since the late 1970s and was actually investigated in 1998. This happened while he was a coach