- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Winter Olympics
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Could we use any players off the Penn state team?
Posted on 7/22/12 at 5:50 pm to BRtoATL
Posted on 7/22/12 at 5:50 pm to BRtoATL
Agree. If any program ever deserved punishment for lack of institutional control, it's Penn St. They were part of a criminal conspiracy. They are going to get hammered. Tommorow is all about sanctions so there is really no doubting that they're coming.
We'll see how Hackenberg and those kids feel come december when O'Brien is trying to find another job and get off the sinking ship. Why would he stay at a job that will not be condusive to success. I wouldn't unless I wanted to be the next cult hero in State College. That's pretty much the only reason I could see him stay on. When he starts to falter, so will the commits.
We'll see how Hackenberg and those kids feel come december when O'Brien is trying to find another job and get off the sinking ship. Why would he stay at a job that will not be condusive to success. I wouldn't unless I wanted to be the next cult hero in State College. That's pretty much the only reason I could see him stay on. When he starts to falter, so will the commits.
0
Posted on 7/22/12 at 5:59 pm to BRtoATL
quote:
The football program was the tail wagging the dog, overruling every other department within the school. Having a football program is not a right, it is a privilege, and it must demonstrate proper administration in order to maintain that privilege.
this may be the best paragraph to appear on the rant in years. well freakn' said.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:12 pm to BRtoATL
quote:
The NCAA has yet to say whether they will pursue sanctions or not. But if you think this situation is so different that it should not warrant sanctions you're wrong. There is a principle called institutional control, which USC violated and received sanctions for concerning Reggie Bush.
I think that is a poor comparison because the USC violations applied to USC gaining an advantage through improper recruiting tactics.
So, while the Penn State issues are absolutely worse, as a college football fan, I do not want the NCAA to be given the power to punish programs outside of scope of fairness as it relates to athletics itself.
I'd love to see the administration of Penn State hammer itself. I just don't want the NCAA gaining power.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:27 pm to moneyg
This has nothing to do with athletics. Institutional control is clearly regarding athletics administration and not general issues. Paterno wasn't protecting his program; he was protecting one of his own, who he probably spent more time with than his family. Everyone involved in the cover up should pay a huge career price, including their Board of regents, or whatever they call them. Clean house, but they really shouldn't be punishing the innocents here.
This said, while the NCAA didn't have any existing rules to govern this, the NCAA is really the member institutions themselves and the Presidents have granted Emmert the power to act. At this point it is primarily about PR as the public wants a pound of flesh and they will get it.
This said, while the NCAA didn't have any existing rules to govern this, the NCAA is really the member institutions themselves and the Presidents have granted Emmert the power to act. At this point it is primarily about PR as the public wants a pound of flesh and they will get it.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:29 pm to moneyg
quote:
I think that is a poor comparison because the USC violations applied to USC gaining an advantage through improper recruiting tactics.
USC was penalized for a lack of institutional control. Penn State is definitely guilty of that, and that is specifically the football program which is guilty of abusing their power to protect the football program and also allow Sandusky to continue his acts using Penn State facilities. If you want to square up the comparison more to your liking, think about it this way: A Penn State associate and former coach was protected by the football department and was able to gain a predatory advantage over innocent youths through improper use of the facilities. Recruiting is not the only power than can be abused.
We don't need to argue the semantics.
Like I said, the football program was the tail wagging the dog. When the football program operates with that type of autonomy and without impunity, you see what it can lead too.
All those crimes were concealed and abetted by the football program. That is abuse of the powers of the football department and worthy of sanction.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:35 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
This has nothing to do with athletics. Institutional control is clearly regarding athletics administration and not general issues. Paterno wasn't protecting his program; he was protecting one of his own, who he probably spent more time with than his family. Everyone involved in the cover up should pay a huge career price, including their Board of regents, or whatever they call them. Clean house, but they really shouldn't be punishing the innocents here. This said, while the NCAA didn't have any existing rules to govern this, the NCAA is really the member institutions themselves and the Presidents have granted Emmert the power to act. At this point it is primarily about PR as the public wants a pound of flesh and they will get it.
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. But I would imagine that the way a Football Program behaves would still fall under the jurisdiction of the NCAA. I would be extremely surprised if there were no provisions for general government of a football program.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:41 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
This has nothing to do with athletics.
That's my point.
quote:
Institutional control is clearly regarding athletics administration and not general issues.
Can you give another example of when the NCAA penalized a school for lack of institutional control outside of the scope of athletics?
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:46 pm to BRtoATL
quote:
Like I said, the football program was the tail wagging the dog. When the football program operates with that type of autonomy and without impunity, you see what it can lead too.
What happened was horrific. I'm not arguing that.
The school and the individuals involved should face criminal charges and civil suits.
But, the NCAA doesn't belong in this conversation, IMO.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 9:49 pm to BRtoATL
quote:
That makes sense, thanks for the clarification. But I would imagine that the way a Football Program behaves would still fall under the jurisdiction of the NCAA. I would be extremely surprised if there were no provisions for general government of a football program.
I don't see it having anything to do with football. This is about a powerful man using his influence to protect a man that he probably thought of like a son and he was terribly wrong to do so. Dismantle his legacy and end the careers of those who conspired with him. But why punish those who had no knowledge, nor gained any benefit whatsoever? Because it feels good I guess.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 10:11 pm to Indiana Tiger
I want to see what Emmert says tomorrow. I don't think it is going to be as simple as saying "these criminal acts, and the cover up, were committed by people in the athletic department or involved with the football program so we are going to hand out a penalty". I think they are going to tie some of the athletic department officials' actions to a violation of specific NCAA principles.
I think it is too early to say they are over reaching their authority in a non athletics related case until we actually hear what they're using as justification. The Baylor basketball situation is the example I used on the other board.
I think it is too early to say they are over reaching their authority in a non athletics related case until we actually hear what they're using as justification. The Baylor basketball situation is the example I used on the other board.
This post was edited on 7/22/12 at 10:12 pm
Posted on 7/22/12 at 10:11 pm to Indiana Tiger
quote:
I don't see it having anything to do with football.
The football program was the tail that wagged the dog. The football program was what ruled with Joe Pa at the head of it. Special access to football facilities were granted with special protection from scrutiny also, and by what power? By the power of the head of the football program. It's all about the football program flexing its power to protect its own--that should be obvious.
This post was edited on 7/22/12 at 10:13 pm
Posted on 7/22/12 at 10:36 pm to MOT
The NCAA can do whatever its members agree it can do. I'm sure there will be high minded principles spoken of and so forth. My concern is not whether they are over reaching their authority, because they won't be, but will justice be properly served.
The death penalty would be an atrocious miscarriage of justice. Players lives uprooted, businesses hurt, people losing their jobs both within and without the athletic dept and for what reason? What did they do to deserve this? Is it because Joe Pa is dead and you can't punish him? Ending careers, criminal (if appropriate) and civil suits, and the loss of reputation of those actually responsible is enough to deter future behavior like this.
But I recognize that it won't stop with them. My hope is that the penalties are more symbolic than crushing (e.g. bowl appearances, a few ships), and they'll just make it out to be like they laid the wood to them.
The death penalty would be an atrocious miscarriage of justice. Players lives uprooted, businesses hurt, people losing their jobs both within and without the athletic dept and for what reason? What did they do to deserve this? Is it because Joe Pa is dead and you can't punish him? Ending careers, criminal (if appropriate) and civil suits, and the loss of reputation of those actually responsible is enough to deter future behavior like this.
But I recognize that it won't stop with them. My hope is that the penalties are more symbolic than crushing (e.g. bowl appearances, a few ships), and they'll just make it out to be like they laid the wood to them.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 10:49 pm to Indiana Tiger
I don't think it will be the death penalty, isn't that reserved for repeat offenders? But the loss of scholarships, postseason bans, and possible TV ban will probably cripple them.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 11:19 pm to MOT
So back to the question, do we go after or want anyone from the team? Apparantly the soph, jr, and sr should be eligible to transfer and play right away.
Posted on 7/22/12 at 11:20 pm to tjtiger9
Weren't we involved with a DE from up there recently, or did he sign somewhere else?
ETA: Nevermind, I think he ended up at Ohio State.
ETA: Nevermind, I think he ended up at Ohio State.
This post was edited on 7/22/12 at 11:23 pm
Posted on 7/23/12 at 2:24 am to Indiana Tiger
quote:
Unless they get the death penalty
What I saw on one of the networks was no deathy penalty, but they might wish they had gotten that as opposed to the hammer that's a coming to them.
Sounds bad, but we will see.
Posted on 7/23/12 at 7:29 am to moneyg
quote:
So, while the Penn State issues are absolutely worse, as a college football fan, I do not want the NCAA to be given the power to punish programs outside of scope of fairness as it relates to athletics itself
I agree, the people that committed the crimes and cover up have been hired and are either in jail, facing charges or dead. Punishing the program after these guys are gone really serves no purpose and sets a dangerous precedent.
Posted on 7/23/12 at 8:59 am to MOT
quote:
I don't think it will be the death penalty, isn't that reserved for repeat offenders? But the loss of scholarships, postseason bans, and possible TV ban will probably cripple them.
I really don't think they will get the death penalty either, but the principle is the same. This is like if the head of Chevy pulled a Joe Pa and the bosses at GM collude to cover it up. Then all their competitors gather around and place competitive restrictions on GM for something that doesn't have anything to do with the business. Antitrust laws wouldn't allow this and the government wouldn't do it either, but the NCAA is not subject to antitrust and it isn't a government.
They are going to do it because they can even though it serves no real purpose other than to punish for punishment's sake. These are not really high minded people of principle; they are stone cold politicians who are going to appease the lynch mob for their own sake.
If they take money away from PSU (mostly TV money), I hope they're smart enough to ensure that no other school profits from it. Those monies should be set aside for some kind of victims or abused children fund.
Posted on 7/23/12 at 9:20 am to Indiana Tiger
Well, they may not have the death penalty, but one can say they were issued a terminal illness.
Posted on 7/23/12 at 12:07 pm to MikeTiger4ever
...neaux, but maybe neaux , not at all. Thus, neaux. I would certainly say neaux...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News