Rocco wrote:Jay Bilas took Emmert and company to task for slagging Paterno but avoiding mention of Spanier, their fellow President who was on high-ranking committees. It takes Spencer Hall's analogy of beating up a corpse a little further down the road.
as a follow up to your earlier post, which was a good post and understandable, is there such a thing as a punishment in the ncaa (and against most orginzations) that does not beat up a corpse a little further down the road?
Yes, you punish the people responsible. The NCAA isn't interested in that, they're interested in putting on a good show and delighting the masses. No one who was actually responsible for the criminal conspiracy at PSU was punished today.
I think it's that, but I also think it's the transient nature of college athletics. I mean, USC can't go unpunished for recruiting violations just because everyone is gone. There has to be some deterrent for the current group, even if the punishment rings hollow.
As far as the NCAA goes here, though. While I think the punishment is justified, the process is ridiculous and sets a dangerous precedent. Not a good day for college athletics.
Carroll and other assistant coaches were at USC when the investigation started. The enforcement proceedings generally move glacially because there's no formal subpoena power. The reports of Bush getting benefits first surfaced in 2006. Carroll left in January 2010 before the sanctions hit but after it was known they were coming.
The NCAA decided they didn't want to give PSU a chance to defend itself so they cut out their normal procedures and put a proverbial gun to PSU's head. That should bother people. The NCAA took huge swipes at a program too scared to fight back and a dead person unable to fight back while making no comment about a former president.
KennyTheKangaroo wrote:
Yes, you punish the people responsible. The NCAA isn't interested in that, they're interested in putting on a good show and delighting the masses. No one who was actually responsible for the criminal conspiracy at PSU was punished today.
do you buy into the whole idea that the "culture" at penn state needs to change? Do you think these penalties will help at all?
In court, if you run out of good objections, you object that the probative value of evidence outweighs the extremely prejudicial nature of the evidence. You make the objection because you have to make it but you don't really have any sort of hard factual basis to keep the evidence out of trial. When I see people talk about "culture" I get that same reaction.
Rocco wrote:
Carroll and other assistant coaches were at USC when the investigation started. The enforcement proceedings generally move glacially because there's no formal subpoena power. The reports of Bush getting benefits first surfaced in 2006. Carroll left in January 2010 before the sanctions hit but after it was known they were coming.
The NCAA decided they didn't want to give PSU a chance to defend itself so they cut out their normal procedures and put a proverbial gun to PSU's head. That should bother people. The NCAA took huge swipes at a program too scared to fight back and a dead person unable to fight back while making no comment about a former president.
Point being, there is no way to adequately punish the offenders. They'll just leave, if they haven't left already. But you still have to punish the powers that put those people in those positions.
It does bother me a lot, as I've stated 10 times or so in this thread. It should bother everyone who is a fan of college athletics.
Just my opinion, but I don't think the school's win/loss record should have anything to do with what happened. To me this is a criminal case, nothing to do with the school's football program and whatever accomplishments it produced.
Sarcastic wrote:Just my opinion, but I don't think the school's win/loss record should have anything to do with what happened. To me this is a criminal case, nothing to do with the school's football program and whatever accomplishments it produced.
I'm kind of torn. In a way, I see what you are saying, but in another way, the sole reason they covered it up was to protect the FB program.
Sarcastic wrote:Just my opinion, but I don't think the school's win/loss record should have anything to do with what happened. To me this is a criminal case, nothing to do with the school's football program and whatever accomplishments it produced.
I think that's how a lot of us felt, but we all knew harsh penalties was forthcoming.
Rocco wrote:
Carroll and other assistant coaches were at USC when the investigation started. The enforcement proceedings generally move glacially because there's no formal subpoena power. The reports of Bush getting benefits first surfaced in 2006. Carroll left in January 2010 before the sanctions hit but after it was known they were coming.
The NCAA decided they didn't want to give PSU a chance to defend itself so they cut out their normal procedures and put a proverbial gun to PSU's head. That should bother people. The NCAA took huge swipes at a program too scared to fight back and a dead person unable to fight back while making no comment about a former president.
Point being, there is no way to adequately punish the offenders. They'll just leave, if they haven't left already. But you still have to punish the powers that put those people in those positions.
It does bother me a lot, as I've stated 10 times or so in this thread. It should bother everyone who is a fan of college athletics.
They could put show-causes on the individuals. They could censure those involved. As it is, they've said nothing about Spanier. There's actually a really good way to punish PSU if you feel the school has to be hurt and not just let the courts run their course- you let the DOE smoke them through Clery Act violations. You let the civil lawsuits bleed them. You aren't rewriting any rulebooks when you do it that way, and both apply better than shoehorning the NCAA rules into a process where they don't really belong.
Rocco wrote:
In court, if you run out of good objections, you object that the probative value of evidence outweighs the extremely prejudicial nature of the evidence. You make the objection because you have to make it but you don't really have any sort of hard factual basis to keep the evidence out of trial. When I see people talk about "culture" I get that same reaction.
So, if the ol' kangaroo is interpreting this correctly you are saying:
"The only people who say that penn state needs a culture change are more or less grasping at straws for punishment."
Rocco wrote:
Carroll and other assistant coaches were at USC when the investigation started. The enforcement proceedings generally move glacially because there's no formal subpoena power. The reports of Bush getting benefits first surfaced in 2006. Carroll left in January 2010 before the sanctions hit but after it was known they were coming.
The NCAA decided they didn't want to give PSU a chance to defend itself so they cut out their normal procedures and put a proverbial gun to PSU's head. That should bother people. The NCAA took huge swipes at a program too scared to fight back and a dead person unable to fight back while making no comment about a former president.
Point being, there is no way to adequately punish the offenders. They'll just leave, if they haven't left already. But you still have to punish the powers that put those people in those positions.
It does bother me a lot, as I've stated 10 times or so in this thread. It should bother everyone who is a fan of college athletics.
You're not getting the point. You punish the program, not the coaches or the players, to deter he same violations from being repeated at other schools. For example, if the penalty for paying players is just a $10,000 fine, that sets a precedent and other coaches will look at that and judge whether the benefit of illegally recruiting players is worth the penalty. In that case, it is. But a bowl ban? Now you're hurting your players and recruiting power. That deters other programs from committing the same violations.
This does nothing in the case of amateurism or putting yourself on an unfair playing field.
What I would do is prosecute and imprison anybody who was involved with the abuse and coverup, all the way to the top, but leave everything else alone. This punishment does affect the school in a more general way and also its students, which I do not think is fair.
viva la ben wrote:Penn State sanctions:
10 Scholarships lost
4 Bowl ban
60 million dollar fine
All wins from 1998 onward are vHacated
5 years of probation
It's not unique to this situation, but I never understood the idea of 'vacating' wins. What? So you mean my team did not actually outscore all those other teams on the field on the day? Gotcha.
I know it's a recordation thing, but it still seems really silly to me.
Rocco wrote:
In court, if you run out of good objections, you object that the probative value of evidence outweighs the extremely prejudicial nature of the evidence. You make the objection because you have to make it but you don't really have any sort of hard factual basis to keep the evidence out of trial. When I see people talk about "culture" I get that same reaction.
So, if the ol' kangaroo is interpreting this correctly you are saying:
"The only people who say that penn state needs a culture change are more or less grasping at straws for punishment."
I don't know if I'd go that far. I guess I'd say that people are using "culture change" because they can but they don't really know what it means or if it means anything. I'll quote Spencer Hall again:
They will use the word "culture" to defend what they do, mostly because using that word allows you to make up whatever you like without evidence, justification, or data.
Sarcastic wrote:What I would do is prosecute and imprison anybody who was involved with the abuse and coverup, all the way to the top, but leave everything else alone. This punishment does affect the school in a more general way and also its students, which I do not think is fair.
Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
viva la ben wrote:Penn State sanctions:
10 Scholarships lost
4 Bowl ban
60 million dollar fine
All wins from 1998 onward are vHacated
5 years of probation
It's not unique to this situation, but I never understood the idea of 'vacating' wins. What? So you mean my team did not actually outscore all those other teams on the field on the day? Gotcha.
I know it's a recordation thing, but it still seems really silly to me.
viva la ben wrote:Penn State sanctions:
10 Scholarships lost
4 Bowl ban
60 million dollar fine
All wins from 1998 onward are vHacated
5 years of probation
It's not unique to this situation, but I never understood the idea of 'vacating' wins. What? So you mean my team did not actually outscore all those other teams on the field on the day? Gotcha.
I know it's a recordation thing, but it still seems really silly to me.
The wins were accomplished by the players, not only by the perverted coach. So when you take away the wins, you punish the players who did nothing and likely knew nothing.
Sarcastic wrote:What I would do is prosecute and imprison anybody who was involved with the abuse and coverup, all the way to the top, but leave everything else alone. This punishment does affect the school in a more general way and also its students, which I do not think is fair.
Fair or unfair, this is making an example. A universities FB (or insert other sport) programs are not worth protecting from a criminal act. If it happens, the price will be paid not only by the individuals hiding (I think they all should go to jail), but what you are protecting will be punished as well.
There are going to be a lot of innocent people affected by this, especially the current players, but that happens in a lot of punishments.
Are there other people who were rumored to be involved and did not face charges as of yet? Curious about that, since I didn't follow the case too closely.
Rocco wrote:
They could put show-causes on the individuals. They could censure those involved. As it is, they've said nothing about Spanier. There's actually a really good way to punish PSU if you feel the school has to be hurt and not just let the courts run their course- you let the DOE smoke them through Clery Act violations. You let the civil lawsuits bleed them. You aren't rewriting any rulebooks when you do it that way, and both apply better than shoehorning the NCAA rules into a process where they don't really belong.
Please explain to me how a show-cause penalty affects Reggie Bush or Pete Carroll. Or Joe Paterno.
I agree with you on the PSU punishment, not sure why we keep going over this.
Sarcastic wrote:
Are there other people who were rumored to be involved and did not face charges as of yet? Curious about that, since I didn't follow the case too closely.
Not sure all those details. Like you, I've been kind of following from a distance.
Rocco wrote:
Carroll and other assistant coaches were at USC when the investigation started. The enforcement proceedings generally move glacially because there's no formal subpoena power. The reports of Bush getting benefits first surfaced in 2006. Carroll left in January 2010 before the sanctions hit but after it was known they were coming.
The NCAA decided they didn't want to give PSU a chance to defend itself so they cut out their normal procedures and put a proverbial gun to PSU's head. That should bother people. The NCAA took huge swipes at a program too scared to fight back and a dead person unable to fight back while making no comment about a former president.
Point being, there is no way to adequately punish the offenders. They'll just leave, if they haven't left already. But you still have to punish the powers that put those people in those positions.
It does bother me a lot, as I've stated 10 times or so in this thread. It should bother everyone who is a fan of college athletics.
You're not getting the point. You punish the program, not the coaches or the players, to deter he same violations from being repeated at other schools. For example, if the penalty for paying players is just a $10,000 fine, that sets a precedent and other coaches will look at that and judge whether the benefit of illegally recruiting players is worth the penalty. In that case, it is. But a bowl ban? Now you're hurting your players and recruiting power. That deters other programs from committing the same violations.
This does nothing in the case of amateurism or putting yourself on an unfair playing field.
I get the point. But a bowl ban isn't a deterrent? There is collateral damage for sure, but there is no punishment the NCAA can give out that is perfectly just to all stakeholders.
Just because there are other stakeholders who committed no violation/crime, who are suffering from the punishment, does not make the punishment unjust. I'm speaking in a general sense here.
Rocco wrote:
They could put show-causes on the individuals. They could censure those involved. As it is, they've said nothing about Spanier. There's actually a really good way to punish PSU if you feel the school has to be hurt and not just let the courts run their course- you let the DOE smoke them through Clery Act violations. You let the civil lawsuits bleed them. You aren't rewriting any rulebooks when you do it that way, and both apply better than shoehorning the NCAA rules into a process where they don't really belong.
Please explain to me how a show-cause penalty affects Reggie Bush or Pete Carroll. Or Joe Paterno.
I agree with you on the PSU punishment, not sure why we keep going over this.
It keeps them from coming back into college football. Obviously it does nothing for Paterno, but the NCAA has no problem in kicking corpses. And the Reggie Bush thing affected eligibility, which falls squarely in the NCAA's purview so there was no question they needed to be involved.
You mentioned how you need to punish the "powers" which is why I brought up things that could be done to punish the school without willingly blowing up people who had nothing to do with the criminal conspiracy, which wouldn't satisfy the masses who demanded the football team suffer while saying this had nothing to do with football.
Sarcastic wrote:
Are there other people who were rumored to be involved and did not face charges as of yet? Curious about that, since I didn't follow the case too closely.
Not sure all those details. Like you, I've been kind of following from a distance.
Curley, Schultz, Spanier, Paterno. That's who we know is involved. Oh and maybe a few janitors, but because they blamed their inaction on being scared of a dead football coach, and being janitors, they are obviously not held to the same ethical standards as a college football coach and won't be prosecuted.
