ncaa accuses paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history"

[ihs82]

so the organization that removed 111 wins from penn state in the stroke of a pen is accusing the paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history."


bigstory.ap.org/article/ncaa-paterno-sanctions-lawsuit-ignores-reality

[mscott59]

May 7, 2014 15:29:47 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

so the organization that removed 111 wins from penn state in the stroke of a pen is accusing the paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history."


bigstory.ap.org/article/ncaa-paterno-sanctions-lawsuit-ignores-reality

and in one sentence, you've accurately described why the paterno family is suing the ncaa. it's not because of the unprecedented sanctions such as bowl bans, scholarship reductions, and $60 million fines. it's because the ncaa voided 111 joepa wins. i wonder what the paternos would do if the ncaa offered to reinstate the wins, in return for dropping the lawsuit, which the family has championed as being in defense of psu and its honor. i wonder...

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

May 7, 2014 16:18:16 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 7, 2014 15:29:47 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

so the organization that removed 111 wins from penn state in the stroke of a pen is accusing the paterno estate of trying to "rewrite history."


bigstory.ap.org/article/ncaa-paterno-sanctions-lawsuit-ignores-reality

and in one sentence, you've accurately described why the paterno family is suing the ncaa. it's not because of the unprecedented sanctions such as bowl bans, scholarship reductions, and $60 million fines. it's because the ncaa voided 111 joepa wins. i wonder what the paternos would do if the ncaa offered to reinstate the wins, in return for dropping the lawsuit, which the family has championed as being in defense of psu and its honor. i wonder...

mark scott
tosu 81

i mean feel free to speculate. my opinion? if the ncaa reinstated the wins and apologized, the paterno's would accept. with no apology, the lawsuit continues. if the ncaa refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing, then they will be instructed by the courts to pay a handsome monetary penalty. if the ncaa truly did no wrong, they should have no issue with providing the plaintiff with any documentation they wish to review.

[mscott59]

May 7, 2014 16:27:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 7, 2014 16:18:16 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

and in one sentence, you've accurately described why the paterno family is suing the ncaa. it's not because of the unprecedented sanctions such as bowl bans, scholarship reductions, and $60 million fines. it's because the ncaa voided 111 joepa wins. i wonder what the paternos would do if the ncaa offered to reinstate the wins, in return for dropping the lawsuit, which the family has championed as being in defense of psu and its honor. i wonder...

mark scott
tosu 81

i mean feel free to speculate. my opinion? if the ncaa reinstated the wins and apologized, the paterno's would accept. with no apology, the lawsuit continues. if the ncaa refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing, then they will be instructed by the courts to pay a handsome monetary penalty. if the ncaa truly did no wrong, they should have no issue with providing the plaintiff with any documentation they wish to review.

and in a similar analogy, if the 3 psu execs about to go on trial just apologize to the sexual assault victims for not being more vigilant in their actions, the commonwealth will simply drop their charges.

the ncaa issued a penalty. psu ACCEPTED the penalty. all of it, including the voided wins. and now you're saying they need to apologize for actions the university ACCEPTED. are you sure the paternos are suing the right body? lol.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

May 7, 2014 20:38:23 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 7, 2014 16:27:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

i mean feel free to speculate. my opinion? if the ncaa reinstated the wins and apologized, the paterno's would accept. with no apology, the lawsuit continues. if the ncaa refuses to acknowledge their wrongdoing, then they will be instructed by the courts to pay a handsome monetary penalty. if the ncaa truly did no wrong, they should have no issue with providing the plaintiff with any documentation they wish to review.

and in a similar analogy, if the 3 psu execs about to go on trial just apologize to the sexual assault victims for not being more vigilant in their actions, the commonwealth will simply drop their charges.

the ncaa issued a penalty. psu ACCEPTED the penalty. all of it, including the voided wins. and now you're saying they need to apologize for actions the university ACCEPTED. are you sure the paternos are suing the right body? lol.

mark scott
tosu 81

You can't really compare a civil suit with a criminal suit. The paterno suit is civil and thus a private matter and as such, handled very differently. The 3 psu execs are facing criminal charges which means the state is accusing them of being harmful to society. Obviously this is handled in other ways. An apology could be sufficient for the plaintiff in a civil suit but it's not for the state in a criminal case.

There is a difference between accepting a penalty and accepting a penalty with a gun pointed to your head. I thought this was obvious.

The paternos added psu as a nominal defendent a few months ago so technically, they are suing psu too.

[mscott59]

May 7, 2014 22:14:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 7, 2014 20:38:23 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

and in a similar analogy, if the 3 psu execs about to go on trial just apologize to the sexual assault victims for not being more vigilant in their actions, the commonwealth will simply drop their charges.

the ncaa issued a penalty. psu ACCEPTED the penalty. all of it, including the voided wins. and now you're saying they need to apologize for actions the university ACCEPTED. are you sure the paternos are suing the right body? lol.

mark scott
tosu 81

You can't really compare a civil suit with a criminal suit. The paterno suit is civil and thus a private matter and as such, handled very differently. The 3 psu execs are facing criminal charges which means the state is accusing them of being harmful to society. Obviously this is handled in other ways. An apology could be sufficient for the plaintiff in a civil suit but it's not for the state in a criminal case.

There is a difference between accepting a penalty and accepting a penalty with a gun pointed to your head. I thought this was obvious.

The paternos added psu as a nominal defendent a few months ago so technically, they are suing psu too.

they had to add psu. they didn't want to sue psu, even though psu's acceptance is the real culprit. they're suing the ncaa because it's easy to pile on the ncaa. i thought THAT was obvious.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

May 7, 2014 22:30:47 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 7, 2014 22:14:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

You can't really compare a civil suit with a criminal suit. The paterno suit is civil and thus a private matter and as such, handled very differently. The 3 psu execs are facing criminal charges which means the state is accusing them of being harmful to society. Obviously this is handled in other ways. An apology could be sufficient for the plaintiff in a civil suit but it's not for the state in a criminal case.

There is a difference between accepting a penalty and accepting a penalty with a gun pointed to your head. I thought this was obvious.

The paternos added psu as a nominal defendent a few months ago so technically, they are suing psu too.

they had to add psu. they didn't want to sue psu, even though psu's acceptance is the real culprit. they're suing the ncaa because it's easy to pile on the ncaa. i thought THAT was obvious.

mark scott
tosu 81

no, that is not as obvious. they are not suing the ncaa b/c it's easy to pile on the ncaa. they are suing b/c the ncaa decided to pile on penn state.

the 3 exec's are facing prison time, paterno died and the school settled with the majority of the victims for close to 60 million dollars. on top of all this, the university was universally condemned and has to live with the shame of what happened for decades. yet the ncaa found it necessary to bypass their own rules and cram further punishment meant to cripple the football programs ability to compete. the ncaa took away athletic scholarships from teenagers. the ncaa took a symbol of pride among alumni and fans removed it with one stroke of the pen. you want to question the paterno motive for suing? how about questioning the ncaa's motive for piling on? they piled on b/c they could. they piled on b/c they wanted to demonstrate to the public how powerful they are. mark emmert wanted to show the world how big his you know what is. did penn state accept? yes. did penn state accept under the threat of annihilation? lets go to trial and find out.

and fwiw, i find it hard to believe that someone as reasonable and pragmatic as you seem to be isn't in the slightest way bothered that the ncaa can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to a participating member just by threatening them. how does this slippery slope not concern people?

[mscott59]

May 8, 2014 7:43:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 7, 2014 22:30:47 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

they had to add psu. they didn't want to sue psu, even though psu's acceptance is the real culprit. they're suing the ncaa because it's easy to pile on the ncaa. i thought THAT was obvious.

mark scott
tosu 81

no, that is not as obvious. they are not suing the ncaa b/c it's easy to pile on the ncaa. they are suing b/c the ncaa decided to pile on penn state.

the 3 exec's are facing prison time, paterno died and the school settled with the majority of the victims for close to 60 million dollars. on top of all this, the university was universally condemned and has to live with the shame of what happened for decades. yet the ncaa found it necessary to bypass their own rules and cram further punishment meant to cripple the football programs ability to compete. the ncaa took away athletic scholarships from teenagers. the ncaa took a symbol of pride among alumni and fans removed it with one stroke of the pen. you want to question the paterno motive for suing? how about questioning the ncaa's motive for piling on? they piled on b/c they could. they piled on b/c they wanted to demonstrate to the public how powerful they are. mark emmert wanted to show the world how big his you know what is. did penn state accept? yes. did penn state accept under the threat of annihilation? lets go to trial and find out.

and fwiw, i find it hard to believe that someone as reasonable and pragmatic as you seem to be isn't in the slightest way bothered the the ncaa can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to a participating member just by threatening them. how does this slippery slope not concern people?

first, thanks for the compliment. i think you're a pretty reasonable guy too. i said this when it happened, and i stand by it. what the ncaa presented to psu as punishment was unprecedented, and it's certainly debatable whether it overstepped their reach in governing college athletics. that said, what happened at psu, within its athletic dept, was also unprecedented. i would think THAT would be what took away the symbol of pride in happy valley. not the stroke of a pen, but what appears could have been either negligence or at worst a strategic effort at the highest levels of the university to choose the reputation of the football program and its legendary head coach over the safety of children at the hands of a once legendary assistant coach.

and i repeat. psu accepted the consequences. rapidly. without debate. your claim that rejecting the punishment would have meant 'annihilation' is the definition of hyperbole. many within psu may regret the decision, but the beef would be with the execs more than the ncaa. but the paternos suing them would make the family look worse. so target the ncaa.

is the ncaa perfect? absolutely not. not even close. it's top heavy in administrators, and lacking in investigator staffing. it's responsible for overseeing the multitude of rules in college sports but almost totally dependent on universities to self-investigate accused wrong-doings. it's decisions are, at the least, un-even. and i would argue that the ncaa cares a lot lately about hoops, on the whole, than d-1 cfb. because the bcs conferences control the major $$ made in cfb, while basketball still drives over 90% of the ncaa revenue sheet. the ncaa makes very little money in football these days.

a host of problems made even worse by the increasing money flowing into college athletics. but it is all the universities have. with all its faults, its what the american university who offer athletics on a varsity level choose, CHOOSE, to oversee sports. d-1 football may choose to evolve into a different kind of oversight sooner rather than later, but the ncaa is still the referee. imperfect but necessary. and my analogy here to psu is that it's liked being flagged for excessive celebration. it has nothing to do with the play on the field being illegal, but the act is still seen as being against the spirit of the game.

psu got flagged for violating the spirit of the game. only in this case, they could have chosen to either fight the penalty in court (an appeals court certainly could have put a stay on any type of ncaa death penalty if psu had wanted to take that on) or accept it and move on. psu chose the latter. again, chose. after the fact, the paternos took it upon themselves opt for the former. because they care more about the overall wins record than the guy who accomplished it did. joepa coached because he loved coaching, i'd argue in later years because he needed coaching because of the purpose it gave to his life. he was far from perfect as well, and he admitted he wished he'd done things differently in all this. but if he were still alive, i truly believe he would not be a party to this suit and would do everything in his power to keep his family from doing this, and instead focus on helping the true victims of all this and moving forward.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

May 8, 2014 8:18:48 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 8, 2014 7:43:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

no, that is not as obvious. they are not suing the ncaa b/c it's easy to pile on the ncaa. they are suing b/c the ncaa decided to pile on penn state.

the 3 exec's are facing prison time, paterno died and the school settled with the majority of the victims for close to 60 million dollars. on top of all this, the university was universally condemned and has to live with the shame of what happened for decades. yet the ncaa found it necessary to bypass their own rules and cram further punishment meant to cripple the football programs ability to compete. the ncaa took away athletic scholarships from teenagers. the ncaa took a symbol of pride among alumni and fans removed it with one stroke of the pen. you want to question the paterno motive for suing? how about questioning the ncaa's motive for piling on? they piled on b/c they could. they piled on b/c they wanted to demonstrate to the public how powerful they are. mark emmert wanted to show the world how big his you know what is. did penn state accept? yes. did penn state accept under the threat of annihilation? lets go to trial and find out.

and fwiw, i find it hard to believe that someone as reasonable and pragmatic as you seem to be isn't in the slightest way bothered the the ncaa can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to a participating member just by threatening them. how does this slippery slope not concern people?

first, thanks for the compliment. i think you're a pretty reasonable guy too. i said this when it happened, and i stand by it. what the ncaa presented to psu as punishment was unprecedented, and it's certainly debatable whether it overstepped their reach in governing college athletics. that said, what happened at psu, within its athletic dept, was also unprecedented. i would think THAT would be what took away the symbol of pride in happy valley. not the stroke of a pen, but what appears could have been either negligence or at worst a strategic effort at the highest levels of the university to choose the reputation of the football program and its legendary head coach over the safety of children at the hands of a once legendary assistant coach.

and i repeat. psu accepted the consequences. rapidly. without debate. your claim that rejecting the punishment would have meant 'annihilation' is the definition of hyperbole. many within psu may regret the decision, but the beef would be with the execs more than the ncaa. but the paternos suing them would make the family look worse. so target the ncaa.

is the ncaa perfect? absolutely not. not even close. it's top heavy in administrators, and lacking in investigator staffing. it's responsible for overseeing the multitude of rules in college sports but almost totally dependent on universities to self-investigate accused wrong-doings. it's decisions are, at the least, un-even. and i would argue that the ncaa cares a lot lately about hoops, on the whole, than d-1 cfb. because the bcs conferences control the major $$ made in cfb, while basketball still drives over 90% of the ncaa revenue sheet. the ncaa makes very little money in football these days.

a host of problems made even worse by the increasing money flowing into college athletics. but it is all the universities have. with all its faults, its what the american university who offer athletics on a varsity level choose, CHOOSE, to oversee sports. d-1 football may choose to evolve into a different kind of oversight sooner rather than later, but the ncaa is still the referee. imperfect but necessary. and my analogy here to psu is that it's liked being flagged for excessive celebration. it has nothing to do with the play on the field being illegal, but the act is still seen as being against the spirit of the game.

psu got flagged for violating the spirit of the game. only in this case, they could have chosen to either fight the penalty in court (an appeals court certainly could have put a stay on any type of ncaa death penalty if psu had wanted to take that on) or accept it and move on. psu chose the latter. again, chose. after the fact, the paternos took it upon themselves opt for the former. because they care more about the overall wins record than the guy who accomplished it did. joepa coached because he loved coaching, i'd argue in later years because he needed coaching because of the purpose it gave to his life. he was far from perfect as well, and he admitted he wished he'd done things differently in all this. but if he were still alive, i truly believe he would not be a party to this suit and would do everything in his power to keep his family from doing this, and instead focus on helping the true victims of all this and moving forward.

mark scott
tosu 81

i can't believe you're buying into this "spirit of the game" crap. if the ncaa truly cared about the "spirit of the game", then notre dame would have been punished for sending a 20 year old videographer up a scissor lift on a windy day jsut to tape practice. or punished nebraska for reinstating lawrence phillips after he was arrested for assaulting his g/f. there are a billion examples of programs violating the "spirit of the game." why punish just penn state? why ignore other programs who don't violate specific ncaa rules but are charged with something serious? could it be because of mob rule? because anyone who didn't say mean things about penn state or anyone who questioned the ncaa's authority in the manner was perceived as defending child rape? it was in this atmophere, in this hysteria, that decisions were made by both penn state and the ncaa. and that's why the whole thing is b.s and it's why the courts should invalidate the consent decree.

[mscott59]

May 8, 2014 11:07:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 8:18:48 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

first, thanks for the compliment. i think you're a pretty reasonable guy too. i said this when it happened, and i stand by it. what the ncaa presented to psu as punishment was unprecedented, and it's certainly debatable whether it overstepped their reach in governing college athletics. that said, what happened at psu, within its athletic dept, was also unprecedented. i would think THAT would be what took away the symbol of pride in happy valley. not the stroke of a pen, but what appears could have been either negligence or at worst a strategic effort at the highest levels of the university to choose the reputation of the football program and its legendary head coach over the safety of children at the hands of a once legendary assistant coach.

and i repeat. psu accepted the consequences. rapidly. without debate. your claim that rejecting the punishment would have meant 'annihilation' is the definition of hyperbole. many within psu may regret the decision, but the beef would be with the execs more than the ncaa. but the paternos suing them would make the family look worse. so target the ncaa.

is the ncaa perfect? absolutely not. not even close. it's top heavy in administrators, and lacking in investigator staffing. it's responsible for overseeing the multitude of rules in college sports but almost totally dependent on universities to self-investigate accused wrong-doings. it's decisions are, at the least, un-even. and i would argue that the ncaa cares a lot lately about hoops, on the whole, than d-1 cfb. because the bcs conferences control the major $$ made in cfb, while basketball still drives over 90% of the ncaa revenue sheet. the ncaa makes very little money in football these days.

a host of problems made even worse by the increasing money flowing into college athletics. but it is all the universities have. with all its faults, its what the american university who offer athletics on a varsity level choose, CHOOSE, to oversee sports. d-1 football may choose to evolve into a different kind of oversight sooner rather than later, but the ncaa is still the referee. imperfect but necessary. and my analogy here to psu is that it's liked being flagged for excessive celebration. it has nothing to do with the play on the field being illegal, but the act is still seen as being against the spirit of the game.

psu got flagged for violating the spirit of the game. only in this case, they could have chosen to either fight the penalty in court (an appeals court certainly could have put a stay on any type of ncaa death penalty if psu had wanted to take that on) or accept it and move on. psu chose the latter. again, chose. after the fact, the paternos took it upon themselves opt for the former. because they care more about the overall wins record than the guy who accomplished it did. joepa coached because he loved coaching, i'd argue in later years because he needed coaching because of the purpose it gave to his life. he was far from perfect as well, and he admitted he wished he'd done things differently in all this. but if he were still alive, i truly believe he would not be a party to this suit and would do everything in his power to keep his family from doing this, and instead focus on helping the true victims of all this and moving forward.

mark scott
tosu 81

i can't believe you're buying into this "spirit of the game" crap. if the ncaa truly cared about the "spirit of the game", then notre dame would have been punished for sending a 20 year old videographer up a scissor lift on a windy day jsut to tape practice. no disagreement there. the coaches that sent him up in that lift should have been charged w/negligence. or punished nebraska for reinstating lawrence phillips after he was arrested for assaulting his g/f.hmm. no, as bad as that was w/phillips, i disagree there. you'd be shutting down a lot of programs if the ncaa adopted your policy here. of course, you already know that. there are a billion examples of programs violating the "spirit of the game." why punish just penn state? why ignore other programs who don't violate specific rules but are charged with something serious? well, this was unchartered territory. unless you know of other child molestation scandals tangled within the web of a large state university w/a historic coach. could it be because of mob rule? because anyone who didn't say mean things about penn state or anyone who questioned the ncaa's authority in the manner was seen as defending child rape? it was in this atmophere, in this hysteria, that decisions were made. and that's why the whole thing is b.s.

if paterno were alive, freeh doesn't implicate him in his report so the ncaa doesn't get involved and thus no lawsuit. freeh implicated paterno with frighteningly little evidence and depended on the media to just echo each others friendly sounds bites.

1. paterno had the opportunity to talk to freeh, and refused. we've been over this before. he did still make time in his dying days to keep talking w/posnanski and the washington post columnist.

2. if the hysteria is to blame, than your fickle finger of fate should be pointing equally at everyone associated w/psu who, i repeat, chose this path. they could have gone the legal route. they didn't. the volume of your criticism sure is a lot lower w/the execs and the bot than it is the ncaa.

3. associating the ncaa w/mob rule now. interesting.

mark scott
tosu 81

[ihs82]

May 8, 2014 11:36:35 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

May 8, 2014 11:07:28 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

i can't believe you're buying into this "spirit of the game" crap. if the ncaa truly cared about the "spirit of the game", then notre dame would have been punished for sending a 20 year old videographer up a scissor lift on a windy day jsut to tape practice. no disagreement there. the coaches that sent him up in that lift should have been charged w/negligence. or punished nebraska for reinstating lawrence phillips after he was arrested for assaulting his g/f.hmm. no, as bad as that was w/phillips, i disagree there. you'd be shutting down a lot of programs if the ncaa adopted your policy here. of course, you already know that. there are a billion examples of programs violating the "spirit of the game." why punish just penn state? why ignore other programs who don't violate specific rules but are charged with something serious? well, this was unchartered territory. unless you know of other child molestation scandals tangled within the web of a large state university w/a historic coach. could it be because of mob rule? because anyone who didn't say mean things about penn state or anyone who questioned the ncaa's authority in the manner was seen as defending child rape? it was in this atmophere, in this hysteria, that decisions were made. and that's why the whole thing is b.s.

if paterno were alive, freeh doesn't implicate him in his report so the ncaa doesn't get involved and thus no lawsuit. freeh implicated paterno with frighteningly little evidence and depended on the media to just echo each others friendly sounds bites.

1. paterno had the opportunity to talk to freeh, and refused. we've been over this before. he did still make time in his dying days to keep talking w/posnanski and the washington post columnist.

2. if the hysteria is to blame, than your fickle finger of fate should be pointing equally at everyone associated w/psu who, i repeat, chose this path. they could have gone the legal route. they didn't. the volume of your criticism sure is a lot lower w/the execs and the bot than it is the ncaa.

3. associating the ncaa w/mob rule now. interesting.

mark scott
tosu 81

so you're saying that the ncaa should ignore their own rules and punish participating members for some serious charge but no specific ncaa rule violation on a case by case basis? and let me guess? the level of outrage people feel, no matter how misguided it may be, should be some sort of guide as to when to get involved?

oh btw, here's an article where a member of the ncaa's executive committee conceding that i'm right:

espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9717481/reducing-scholarship-sanctions-reveals-more-ncaa-enforcement-penn-state-nittany-lions-behavior

"And that's why three months ago, Michigan State president and NCAA Executive Committee chairwoman Lou Anna Simon hinted that change was coming.

When asked to revisit the Penn State decision, as part of a broader question on Emmert's tenure as a leader, Simon admitted that both the NCAA and Penn State caved to external pressures when they agreed to the hefty sanctions.

"I think the Penn State issue that was done, there was an outcry to do something and do it quickly,'' she told ESPN.com. "…At the time, the decision was to accept the Freeh Report and not have the NCAA separately investigate. That sure seemed like a good decision at the time.

"I think now it might have been handled differently by both parties. … In hindsight, you have to decide how much the public outcry pushed both sides in a process that was unconventional. It wasn't just the NCAA but Penn State that was the focus of this public outcry.''

[oujour76]

May 8, 2014 12:07:30 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 8, 2014 11:36:35 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

1. paterno had the opportunity to talk to freeh, and refused. we've been over this before. he did still make time in his dying days to keep talking w/posnanski and the washington post columnist.

2. if the hysteria is to blame, than your fickle finger of fate should be pointing equally at everyone associated w/psu who, i repeat, chose this path. they could have gone the legal route. they didn't. the volume of your criticism sure is a lot lower w/the execs and the bot than it is the ncaa.

3. associating the ncaa w/mob rule now. interesting.

mark scott
tosu 81

so you're saying that the ncaa should ignore their own rules and punish participating members for some serious charge but no specific ncaa rule violation on a case by case basis? and let me guess? the level of outrage people feel, no matter how misguided it may be, should be some sort of guide as to when to get involved?

oh btw, here's an article where a member of the ncaa's executive committee conceding that i'm right:

espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9717481/reducing-scholarship-sanctions-reveals-more-ncaa-enforcement-penn-state-nittany-lions-behavior

"And that's why three months ago, Michigan State president and NCAA Executive Committee chairwoman Lou Anna Simon hinted that change was coming.

When asked to revisit the Penn State decision, as part of a broader question on Emmert's tenure as a leader, Simon admitted that both the NCAA and Penn State caved to external pressures when they agreed to the hefty sanctions.

"I think the Penn State issue that was done, there was an outcry to do something and do it quickly,'' she told ESPN.com. "…At the time, the decision was to accept the Freeh Report and not have the NCAA separately investigate. That sure seemed like a good decision at the time.

"I think now it might have been handled differently by both parties. … In hindsight, you have to decide how much the public outcry pushed both sides in a process that was unconventional. It wasn't just the NCAA but Penn State that was the focus of this public outcry.''

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

[Buckeye Dale]

May 8, 2014 7:43:03 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

May 7, 2014 22:30:47 GMT -5 mscott59 said:

they had to add psu. they didn't want to sue psu, even though psu's acceptance is the real culprit. they're suing the ncaa because it's easy to pile on the ncaa. i thought THAT was obvious.

mark scott
tosu 81

no, that is not as obvious. they are not suing the ncaa b/c it's easy to pile on the ncaa. they are suing b/c the ncaa decided to pile on penn state.

the 3 exec's are facing prison time, paterno died and the school settled with the majority of the victims for close to 60 million dollars. on top of all this, the university was universally condemned and has to live with the shame of what happened for decades. yet the ncaa found it necessary to bypass their own rules and cram further punishment meant to cripple the football programs ability to compete. the ncaa took away athletic scholarships from teenagers. the ncaa took a symbol of pride among alumni and fans removed it with one stroke of the pen. you want to question the paterno motive for suing? how about questioning the ncaa's motive for piling on? they piled on b/c they could. they piled on b/c they wanted to demonstrate to the public how powerful they are. mark emmert wanted to show the world how big his you know what is. did penn state accept? yes. did penn state accept under the threat of annihilation? lets go to trial and find out.

and fwiw, i find it hard to believe that someone as reasonable and pragmatic as you seem to be isn't in the slightest way bothered that the ncaa can do whatever it wants, whenever it wants to a participating member just by threatening them. how does this slippery slope not concern people?

Careful there...talk about slippery slopes...

[ihs82]

May 8, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

May 8, 2014 12:07:30 GMT -5 ihs82 said:

so you're saying that the ncaa should ignore their own rules and punish participating members for some serious charge but no specific ncaa rule violation on a case by case basis? and let me guess? the level of outrage people feel, no matter how misguided it may be, should be some sort of guide as to when to get involved?

oh btw, here's an article where a member of the ncaa's executive committee conceding that i'm right:

espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/9717481/reducing-scholarship-sanctions-reveals-more-ncaa-enforcement-penn-state-nittany-lions-behavior

"And that's why three months ago, Michigan State president and NCAA Executive Committee chairwoman Lou Anna Simon hinted that change was coming.

When asked to revisit the Penn State decision, as part of a broader question on Emmert's tenure as a leader, Simon admitted that both the NCAA and Penn State caved to external pressures when they agreed to the hefty sanctions.

"I think the Penn State issue that was done, there was an outcry to do something and do it quickly,'' she told ESPN.com. "…At the time, the decision was to accept the Freeh Report and not have the NCAA separately investigate. That sure seemed like a good decision at the time.

"I think now it might have been handled differently by both parties. … In hindsight, you have to decide how much the public outcry pushed both sides in a process that was unconventional. It wasn't just the NCAA but Penn State that was the focus of this public outcry.''

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

aren't you sort of proving my point? the psu execs are accused by the state of mishandling the sandusky situation so they are being charged and will have to prove their case in court. both the ncaa and the psu bot have not been held accountable yet. why should the ncaa and the psu bot elude accountability if they erred? the psu execs certainly aren't. the ncaa handled the psu case in such a unique, unprecedented way. it has created a ton of controversy. why not disclose what actually happened? why is the truth a bad thing?

[daleko]

May 8, 2014 12:22:52 GMT -5 oujour76 said:

In hindsight, both parties might have handled things differently. Fair enough. But, the time to handle things differently started a long time ago.....in hindsight do you think that Penn State would have handled things differently with Sandusky as well? IOW, treat him like any other employee caught in his situation? With the school cooperating with the investigation every step of the way? Hell, they might have even tried to find out the name of the kid in the shower.

His hind sight  is selective.