Replies

This was a cover up by the administration and they should be held responsible and not the players.

I already addressed this in post #72:

So, I'll repeat it & comment a little more:

I said: ...let's hit the rewind button a year and a half ago when the NCAA came out with its sanctions vs. Penn State. I can recall a FREEPER who asked then the question, "What did those [then-current] Penn State players do?" -- to be saddled with such penalties?

My response then was to say: "as if you didn't know, college rosters turn over every 4 yrs...and practically are new teams starter-wise every 3 yrs...under this new standard you propose, the ncaa statute of limitations for punishing teams for violations would be about 3 yrs...perhaps every 2 yrs if a given roster could be proven to have 'enough' turnover."

Sorry, but the NCAA -- no matter what college scandal we're discussing -- always has to penalize the given school's PROGRAM involved...

Anybody saying that starters can't be impacted by decisions made before they got on campus isn't living in a real world.

ADDITIONAL COMMENT: For you to offer some consistency on this as "policy," you would need to advocate that the NCAA establish a statute of limitation of about 2-3 years post-violation.

As I said above, college rosters turn over every 4 years...and starters about every three years (or less)...Hence, ANY penalties coming down about 4+ years or so -- after the fact -- wind up hurting players who had NOTHING to do with the violations.

So is this what you're advocating?

And if so, why such sudden advocacy??? Can you show me ONE post or ONE place where you've called for such an NCAA statute of limitations prior to this Penn State penalty?

If not, I detect some selective outrage or selective accountability here.

************************

My opinion is punish the school in this case and not the program. How is being denied bowl games punishing a child molestor?

I just addressed this in post #101, plus the last part of post #99. In post #101, I showed that the Penn State athletic program DID violate NCAA bylaw 2.4; and that both athletic director Tim Curley and Joe Paterno -- both culprits by glaring omission -- were paid by the athletic budget of Penn State.

In post #99, I also mentioned that oversight of its showers on campus is likewise an athletic budget item; and that it's not enough to claim than the educator who knows about a sexual assault, "Well, since the sexual assault didn't have ANYTHING to do with classroom management, it's not my issue" (see Steubenville rape case example I use there).

You claim that the "program" shouldn't be penalized...

Well, if that's the case then there wasn't ANY reason for...
...Paterno to be fired...
...or to not bring recruiting head McQueery back...
...or for Penn State athletic director Tim Curley to be placed on admin leave...
...or for Penn State to choose not to extend Curley's athletic budget contract last June...

After all, your apparent claim here is that the athletic department program was run squeaky clean!

It's quite curious that we see so many posters try to make some delineation 'tween the school budget + accompanying school admins on the payroll...
vs. the athletic dept budget -- which includes the football program -- + accompanying A.D.s. and football coaches on the payroll...

(Quite frankly, it's a silly distinction for which there's no need to parse such compartmentalization...unless, of course, you've become a Penn State apologist and advocate for what the athletic department people failed to do...which I cover in the last part of post #99 as to those failings)