Penn State: Punitive Measures announced Monday

[flynryan15]

I'm aware of the facts of the case. Were I in charge of meting out punishment I would have shut down the football program, not just for a period of years but permanently.

But you are not advancing arguments, you are merely stating feelings. A perfectly relevant part of the discussion, but it doesn't answer my particular question.

What you are failing to understand thatthr NCAA operates on the theory that participation is a privilege not a right and they can take it away at any time.

 

[WVDolphan]

 

[TheWalrus]

A lack of institutional control is found when the Committee on Infractions determines that major violations occurred and the institution failed to display: (1) Adequate compliance measures. (2) Appropriate education on those compliance measures. (3) Sufficient monitoring to ensure the compliance measures are followed. (4) Swift action upon learning of a violation.

They clearly broke (4) at least.

"Lack of institutional control" in the USC model certainly doesn't appear to apply in this particular case. It would be like someone arguing Nixon lost control of the White House from '72 to '74 when he was the one leading the cover up.

What really seems to be going on here is it wasn't something they accounted for in the rule book (not that I blame them). So if they have to call what happened at Penn State something else to make the punishment fly according to the rules, then I'm okay with that. The goal should be to apply justice, not follow the rules to the letter. But I just don't know why no one seems to be pointing to it as a clear case of competitive advantage. It's both factual and punishable by the rules.

There's nothing ethical about covering up child rape. A cover up which as you said, theoretically game them a competitive advantage. The NCAA can do whatever they want. The Board of Directors gave Emmert permission to go against the usual precedent because this is an unprecedented case, and that's exactly what happened. Nobody is going to challenge the NCAA on it, nor should they.

I agree with your last two sentences, certainly. But I can't agree with "the NCAA can do whatever they want" (well, perhaps it's undeniable as a practical matter). This is another reason why I would prefer if this punishment was being handed down as a competitive advantage violation, since it binds the NCAA, at least theoretically, within some kind of framework.

---------- Post added at 09:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:31 PM ----------

Yup. The NCAA should have dictated this as the new mascot and mandated the school change it's name to Peen State.

 

[NY8123]

This punishment was as close to the death penalty as a college can get without pulling the plug. I expected unprecedented punishment but I never expected the death penalty for PSU. Now if you want the death penalty for Sandusky have at, you can inject that ****er and watch him die for all I care.

 

[JCane]

 

[MD]

Honestly, with the NCAA taking action on PSU, I wonder why they overlooked Virginia and Baylor. Certainly I am not the only one who is concerned that Emmert has set a precedence to act in the same manner as Roger Goodell. If you're not concerned now then you may want to re-think your position.

 

[flynryan15]

Honestly, with the NCAA taking action on PSU, I wonder why they overlooked Virginia and Baylor. Certainly I am not the only one who is concerned that Emmert has set a precedence to act in the same manner as Roger Goodell. If you're not concerned now then you may want to re-think your position.

Elaborate what are we to rethink?