Really, seriously?

[gobucksgo]

ESPN is reporting that Jo Pa's 111 games that were vacated will be reinstated, again, making him the winningest coach in NCAA history.

While it helps his legacy, it ticks me off. The NCAA needs to then reinstate our vacated wins over Tattoo-gate.

Paterno knowingly covered for a coach that is a child molester, Tress covered for a few players trading Jerseys and cleats for tats.

Makes me sick!

[mikeytbuckeyes]

I don't understand why they are doing this. When this punishment was issued it was because a culture existed at PSU where it was "protect your wins at all cost." So what changed? A few post season bans, a few vacated scholarships, and a fine and we're all good? So where's the lasting impact?
As meaningless as these vacated wins are, I think that would leave a lasting impact.

[ohstatefan]

Sounds like the NCAA just really wanted to get the 60mil out of PSU, and was willing to cave on other aspects to make it happen.

[cwerph]

NCAA had no business intervening in a criminal matter. They intimidated a weak university president into capitulation.

[angrybaldman]

The NCAA is crumbling

onwardstate.com/2015/01/15/ncaa-chair-admits-to-not-reading-freeh-report-prior-to-sanctioning-penn-state/

[ohstatefan]

Jan 16, 2015 14:39:11 GMT -5 cwerph said:

NCAA had no business intervening in a criminal matter. They intimidated a weak university president into capitulation.

Then I imagine you also don't want the NFL punishing guys like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson for their legal matters that don't pertain to football.

[cwerph]

Jan 16, 2015 15:23:18 GMT -5 ohstatefan said:

Jan 16, 2015 14:39:11 GMT -5 cwerph said:

NCAA had no business intervening in a criminal matter. They intimidated a weak university president into capitulation.

Then I imagine you also don't want the NFL punishing guys like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson for their legal matters that don't pertain to football.

Not close to the same thing. There is no "shield" of college football to protect. What happened at PSU was largely unrelated to anything with the athletic department.

Mind you, I think Paterno is a piece of scum and should rot in hell for his part in protecting Sandusky. I just don't believe it was related to a competitive advantage in football.

[ohstatefan]

Jan 16, 2015 15:33:23 GMT -5 cwerph said:

Jan 16, 2015 15:23:18 GMT -5 ohstatefan said:

Then I imagine you also don't want the NFL punishing guys like Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson for their legal matters that don't pertain to football.

Not close to the same thing. There is no "shield" of college football to protect. What happened at PSU was largely unrelated to anything with the athletic department.

Mind you, I think Paterno is a piece of scum and should rot in hell for his part in protecting Sandusky. I just don't believe it was related to a competitive advantage in football.

They're very close to the same thing in the respect of football providing punishments for things unrelated to football. But please explain to me what you mean by a 'shield' of professional football. Perhaps I'm missing your point there.

But I disagree, there there was no competitive advantage to be gained by Paterno's actions. Paterno's involvement in the cover-up was to protect the image of Penn State and Penn State football. If he had not done so, they would have had a competitive disadvantage. The negative publicity would have had a significant impact on recruiting.

If the rapist were instead someone unaffiliated with Penn State at all that broke into a campus building, and did what he did, I think Paterno and company would have handled the matter very differently.

[keln]

The NCAA should have had nothing to do with this in the first place. This was a criminal case. I've never been like a big Joe Pa fan, or hated him either, but the degree to which he knew and covered up for Sandusky is questionable. Either way that was a criminal matter that had nothing to do specifically with the football team. If Joe Pa was part of a cover up, then he should have been prosecuted as well.

[cwerph]

Jan 16, 2015 16:29:02 GMT -5 ohstatefan said:

Jan 16, 2015 15:33:23 GMT -5 cwerph said:

Not close to the same thing. There is no "shield" of college football to protect. What happened at PSU was largely unrelated to anything with the athletic department.

Mind you, I think Paterno is a piece of scum and should rot in hell for his part in protecting Sandusky. I just don't believe it was related to a competitive advantage in football.

They're very close to the same thing in the respect of football providing punishments for things unrelated to football. But please explain to me what you mean by a 'shield' of professional football. Perhaps I'm missing your point there.

But I disagree, there there was no competitive advantage to be gained by Paterno's actions. Paterno's involvement in the cover-up was to protect the image of Penn State and Penn State football. If he had not done so, they would have had a competitive disadvantage. The negative publicity would have had a significant impact on recruiting.

If the rapist were instead someone unaffiliated with Penn State at all that broke into a campus building, and did what he did, I think Paterno and company would have handled the matter very differently.

The "shield" or "brand" of the NFL, with only 32 teams, is protected at all costs. All the evidence necessary is found in the reaction of some sponsors pulling out of the "Pink" promotions during October in the NFL. The NFL responded with all sorts of things - PSA's, a new personal conduct policy, suspensions (at least one of which was overturned), etc. They take the reputation of the league very seriously.

College football has hundreds of teams at multiple levels. One rogue program is not in danger of ruining college football.

Penn State probably, in the aggregate, was hurt more than helped by the "cover-up." If it had been revealed in 2001, JoePa would probably have been forced into retirement and they would have had a competent coach those 12 years.

[nerk]

As I have said several times, the PSU scandal was more about child sex slavery and it's government's ties.

You have to understand, things like this happen on levels much deeper than most people realize unless you are willing to really pay attention.

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


You think this is all just a coincidence? NO! I have said it before.


americanfreepress.net/?p=5131


Exposed by John DeCamp
educate-yourself.org/cn/franklincoverupexcerpt.shtml


www.sportingnews.com/ncaa-football/story/2012-07-25/penn-state-graham-spanier-president-federal-government-job-national-security-fre

[keln]

There is no questioning the seriousness of this matter. But it is not an athletic matter. It is a criminal matter. The NCAA had no business butting in, and the judicial system had every reason to prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. And if that means Joe Pa was in on a cover up and didn't get prosecuted, then the judicial system failed. But the NCAA has no jurisdiction in such matters.

Think about who really suffered when the NCAA decided to sanction PSU...the players. The coaches who had nothing to do with it. The fans and students who also had nothing to do with it. The punishment should have been levied in criminal court. The parties responsible should have answered for their action or inaction. But the team itself should not have been penalized.

Someone brought up the NFL. Well that is a different thing entirely. The NFL is a business, and as a business it has a legal right to protect its brand. And as such, its charter members are subject to legal action to protect that NFL brand, and thus the NFL can force players out or penalties on them or their teams for actions that damage the brand.

The NCAA is not supposed to be a business or a brand, and as such can't exert the same influence from a legal standpoint. They have specific rules that the schools agree to abide by. That is the length and breadth of the NCAA's jurisdiction.