|
Post by philly on Jan 17, 2015 10:33:14 GMT -5
Paterno covered it up/ignored it to protect himself. Why do you keep making the leap to punish the entire program? Punish the criminals. It's not a leap. See the FabFive or SMu football. Who/what was punished in those cases? At least in those cases it was actual players that committed ncaa violations. Players didn't do anything wrong at PSU. They are the ones that actually won the fucking games.
|
|
|
Post by steve6884 on Jan 17, 2015 11:11:15 GMT -5
Makes sense to punish an additional 120 players per year that had nothing to do with it. Why do they have to restore his wins to give him back that recognition? As was suggested, give them back to the university if they must, but not him. I could live with that. let the kids have the wins
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 17, 2015 12:12:27 GMT -5
Not a football matter imo. FBI situation. I agree to a certain extent, or in addition to. But, they covered it up to protect the football program, and that is how I feel it ties in. That's why I believe the program/coach should be punished by the NCAA. Like Philly said- Paterno covered it up or just was in ridiculous denial - either way, he paid the price. As for those within PSU administration who may also have been involved- all have been fired or were forced to resign. Those involved have been punished. When you start punishing those who had nothing to do with It- you create a subjective gray precedent with no defined line to be drawn on what is and is not acceptable punishment. Crime punishment had to be black and white.
|
|
|
Post by gobluegirl on Jan 17, 2015 18:49:57 GMT -5
My 2 cents...fully acknowledging i am biased because every day I work with kids who have been sexually abused...
Think the NCAA reinstating those wins is bullshit. I agree that for the most part, the crimes were a law enforcement matter, not an NCAA matter. That said, THE PROGRAM was responsible for countless children being molested. From Sandusky committing the heinous acts to Paterno who turned a blind eye to the athletic director who also did nothing. This was a problem that involved the entire football program. And as such, the program should have consequences. THAT is why you vacate the wins. It wasn't just Paterno. It was Sandusky. AND Paterno. AND the AD. And because of them, there were DOZENS of children who were raped. CHILDREN were RAPED. so, quite frankly, given the nightmare experiences of those dozens of kids, i really could give a flying fuck if some player from 15 years ago has to vacate his wins. Dozens. of kids. raped. and the PROGRAM knew. So the program pays the price.
As to Gibbons at U of M. That case is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Girl was raped. I know from first hand knowledge that she was raped. She immediately reported it. She had physical injury because of the rape. Then she was threatened by Lewan. ANd the police did little about it, sat on it. She was harrassed for reporting it, and when the police finally DID decide to present a warrant, she no longer wanted to prosecute. After being threatened by a 300 lb asshat. Prosecuters cant charge a case with a witness who wont prosecute. So what does the coach do? Sit a player for a doing something even though he was never charged? I do not know.
That said, if the University and law enforcement had been on the ball from the get go, I believe she would have prosecuted. what should the punishment be for that? Arising out of this case, though, there is a new policy at the university and being pushed by the federal government for more responsive investigations in cases like these.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 17, 2015 19:33:20 GMT -5
My 2 cents...fully acknowledging i am biased because every day I work with kids who have been sexually abused... Think the NCAA reinstating those wins is bullshit. I agree that for the most part, the crimes were a law enforcement matter, not an NCAA matter. That said, THE PROGRAM was responsible for countless children being molested. From Sandusky committing the heinous acts to Paterno who turned a blind eye to the athletic director who also did nothing. This was a problem that involved the entire football program. And as such, the program should have consequences. THAT is why you vacate the wins. It wasn't just Paterno. It was Sandusky. AND Paterno. AND the AD. And because of them, there were DOZENS of children who were raped. CHILDREN were RAPED. so, quite frankly, given the nightmare experiences of those dozens of kids, i really could give a flying fuck if some player from 15 years ago has to vacate his wins. Dozens. of kids. raped. and the PROGRAM knew. So the program pays the price. As to Gibbons at U of M. That case is a clusterfuck of epic proportions. Girl was raped. I know from first hand knowledge that she was raped. She immediately reported it. She had physical injury because of the rape. Then she was threatened by Lewan. ANd the police did little about it, sat on it. She was harrassed for reporting it, and when the police finally DID decide to present a warrant, she no longer wanted to prosecute. After being threatened by a 300 lb asshat. Prosecuters cant charge a case with a witness who wont prosecute. So what does the coach do? Sit a player for a doing something even though he was never charged? I do not know. That said, if the University and law enforcement had been on the ball from the get go, I believe she would have prosecuted. what should the punishment be for that? Arising out of this case, though, there is a new policy at the university and being pushed by the federal government for more responsive investigations in cases like these. Responding to the first paragraph only... If say Ford motor company found out that a VP was raping boys on new car rides at the test track. The president had a witness come up and say he thought he saw the VP raping a boy in a car, but didn't take it seriously and disregarded it. The witness then went to Bill Ford Jr and told him, but he also did nothing because he knew it would hurt the company. When this whole conspiracy unfolds- the government gets involved and decides to come in after the police arrested everyone involved and make a political statement by taking away all of Fords government contracts. This causes thousands of people not involved to lose their jobs... But it's ok because someone that had nothing to do with them raped some boys? You are right- your bias does blind your judgement. Punishment must be equal to the crime. Tit for tat, eye for eye in the figurative sense. When you let a third party get involved (NCAA) in a criminal case- you're losing control of our legal system and Making it a petty political tool.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 17, 2015 19:36:02 GMT -5
Reading the whole thing now- it's comical that you are not as vehemently passionate about everyone involved in the Gibbons case as you are about the PSU case. By your logic- everyone in the police dept should be punished as well as UM Athletic Dept. But, hey, police didn't handle it efficiently... Oh well, life goes on.
|
|
|
Post by philly on Jan 17, 2015 20:40:14 GMT -5
I'm sure I have 100 posts on si right after it came out saying wins should be taken away. It just makes no sense once you can rationally think about it.
|
|
|
Post by gobluegirl on Jan 17, 2015 20:40:56 GMT -5
Reading the whole thing now- it's comical that you are not as vehemently passionate about everyone involved in the Gibbons case as you are about the PSU case. By your logic- everyone in the police dept should be punished as well as UM Athletic Dept. But, hey, police didn't handle it efficiently... Oh well, life goes on. I was and am appalled at how my University handled the Gibbons matter. Shameful. It is not "oh well, life goes on." The university and police dropped the ball and a rapist went free and was allowed to play until the last game of his career. I was livid. If nothing else, I know that because of it that policy not only at U of M, but at universities across the country have changed their policy regarding how they investigate sexual assaults. Now what is tricky is what the football staff should have done about it. they had a player accused of a crime but no charges ever filed. My opinion he should have been kicked off the team immediately. but then you would have people in an uproar accusing the coach/program playing the role of judge and jury in when local law enforcement declined to prosecute.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 17, 2015 22:48:00 GMT -5
Reading the whole thing now- it's comical that you are not as vehemently passionate about everyone involved in the Gibbons case as you are about the PSU case. By your logic- everyone in the police dept should be punished as well as UM Athletic Dept. But, hey, police didn't handle it efficiently... Oh well, life goes on. I was and am appalled at how my University handled the Gibbons matter. Shameful. It is not "oh well, life goes on." The university and police dropped the ball and a rapist went free and was allowed to play until the last game of his career. I was livid. If nothing else, I know that because of it that policy not only at U of M, but at universities across the country have changed their policy regarding how they investigate sexual assaults. Now what is tricky is what the football staff should have done about it. they had a player accused of a crime but no charges ever filed. My opinion he should have been kicked off the team immediately. but then you would have people in an uproar accusing the coach/program playing the role of judge and jury in when local law enforcement declined to prosecute. So it's tricky for UM on how the football staff could have better handled the situation... But with PSU it's pretty cut and dry that all their football wins under JoePa should forever be stricken from record books? Do you see what you are doing here?
|
|
waxing
All-Andre Drummond
Posts: 177
|
Post by waxing on Jan 18, 2015 1:19:13 GMT -5
In your opinion is it ever ok for the NCAA to take away wins a Joe? Not meant as a snarky question - just honestly wondering.
I agree that the NCAA's punishments wind up hurting people not involved, and they always have.
What is the fix? So far that's the biggest indictment of the NCAA - nobody has figured out a balance.
|
|
|
Post by philly on Jan 18, 2015 7:56:01 GMT -5
If you took away wins whenever a coach covered up a crime, there wouldn't be many wins left.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 8:03:53 GMT -5
In your opinion is it ever ok for the NCAA to take away wins a Joe? Not meant as a snarky question - just honestly wondering. I agree that the NCAA's punishments wind up hurting people not involved, and they always have. What is the fix? So far that's the biggest indictment of the NCAA - nobody has figured out a balance. The NCAA's purpose is to regulate and govern NCAA Athletic events and programming. They are not a court of law. That said, if an event occurred that directly impacted a college's ability to win a game- then that win should be taken away. Off the field issues that have nothing I do with a game directly should not have an impact. If they found out players cheated on exams to stay eligible, a student took money from a booster to join a team, someone bribed an official, etc... Then sure, take the win away.
|
|
|
Post by The Hoff on Jan 18, 2015 8:13:07 GMT -5
In your opinion is it ever ok for the NCAA to take away wins a Joe? Not meant as a snarky question - just honestly wondering. I agree that the NCAA's punishments wind up hurting people not involved, and they always have. What is the fix? So far that's the biggest indictment of the NCAA - nobody has figured out a balance. The NCAA's purpose is to regulate and govern NCAA Athletic events and programming. They are not a court of law. That said, if an event occurred that directly impacted a college's ability to win a game- then that win should be taken away. Off the field issues that have nothing I do with a game directly should not have an impact. If they found out players cheated on exams to stay eligible, a student took money from a booster to join a team, someone bribed an official, etc... Then sure, take the win away. But then don't you fall into the same trap of punishing the innocent? Taking away the win from all of the students who played and won punishes those who played by the rules. See i.e. USC/Reggie Bush. Bush met with agents, voiding his amatueur status. USC lost wins and a championship. I do't think anyone would argue that pulling his Heisman was appropriate. Why punish the team (and FUTURE teams and players by taking away bowls) for conduct of one student? At the time USC was bowl ineligible, Bush was no longer at USC, and some of the students who could not go to bowl games had not even enrolled at USC yet. How is that fair?
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 8:43:06 GMT -5
If you took away wins whenever a coach covered up a crime, there wouldn't be many wins left. Or maybe they would stop covering up crimes.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 8:46:28 GMT -5
In your opinion is it ever ok for the NCAA to take away wins a Joe? Not meant as a snarky question - just honestly wondering. I agree that the NCAA's punishments wind up hurting people not involved, and they always have. What is the fix? So far that's the biggest indictment of the NCAA - nobody has figured out a balance. The NCAA's purpose is to regulate and govern NCAA Athletic events and programming. They are not a court of law. That said, if an event occurred that directly impacted a college's ability to win a game- then that win should be taken away. Off the field issues that have nothing I do with a game directly should not have an impact. If they found out players cheated on exams to stay eligible, a student took money from a booster to join a team, someone bribed an official, etc... Then sure, take the win away. So you think it is ok if the school covers up a crime to keep their star athlete eligible. Hence enhancing their chance at victory. Is that fair to their opponent who lets legal events occur as they should?
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 8:56:43 GMT -5
The NCAA's purpose is to regulate and govern NCAA Athletic events and programming. They are not a court of law. That said, if an event occurred that directly impacted a college's ability to win a game- then that win should be taken away. Off the field issues that have nothing I do with a game directly should not have an impact. If they found out players cheated on exams to stay eligible, a student took money from a booster to join a team, someone bribed an official, etc... Then sure, take the win away. But then don't you fall into the same trap of punishing the innocent? Taking away the win from all of the students who played and won punishes those who played by the rules. See i.e. USC/Reggie Bush. Bush met with agents, voiding his amatueur status. USC lost wins and a championship. I do't think anyone would argue that pulling his Heisman was appropriate. Why punish the team (and FUTURE teams and players by taking away bowls) for conduct of one student? At the time USC was bowl ineligible, Bush was no longer at USC, and some of the students who could not go to bowl games had not even enrolled at USC yet. How is that fair? I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a precedent that has been set, is completely written within the NCAA rules, and unfortunately has to be in place. If a school could constantly "cheat", knowing that only the player would be held accountable- then the school would have no reason to discontinue these actions. Regardless of the other people on the team- they were (maybe unknowingly) participating with someone who cheated to help them win. With Sandusky- there is/was no connection to the players and him fûcking kids in the butt had no bearing on them winning or losing games. They won with him and won without him. There was no written rule or precedent for the NCAA to take action as it was a criminal matter... He broke criminal rules. Paterno turning a blind eye was enabling criminal activity- not activity that was directly intended to give PSU an unfair advantage on the football field.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 8:58:50 GMT -5
The NCAA's purpose is to regulate and govern NCAA Athletic events and programming. They are not a court of law. That said, if an event occurred that directly impacted a college's ability to win a game- then that win should be taken away. Off the field issues that have nothing I do with a game directly should not have an impact. If they found out players cheated on exams to stay eligible, a student took money from a booster to join a team, someone bribed an official, etc... Then sure, take the win away. So you think it is ok if the school covers up a crime to keep their star athlete eligible. Hence enhancing their chance at victory. Is that fair to their opponent who lets legal events occur as they should? Was Sandusky a star athlete? If an athlete was kept eligible because the school knowingly hid his involvement in a crime- and this gave them an advantage to win a game- then yes, that needs to be addressed. Then again I've said this multiple times already.
|
|
psycaz
All-Matt Stafford
Posts: 482
|
Post by psycaz on Jan 18, 2015 9:21:22 GMT -5
So you think it is ok if the school covers up a crime to keep their star athlete eligible. Hence enhancing their chance at victory. Is that fair to their opponent who lets legal events occur as they should? Was Sandusky a star athlete? If an athlete was kept eligible because the school knowingly hid his involvement in a crime- and this gave them an advantage to win a game- then yes, that needs to be addressed. Then again I've said this multiple times already. You were asking others about what's fair. Looking for clarification on where you stood
|
|
|
Post by fastfreddie on Jan 18, 2015 9:26:34 GMT -5
Was Sandusky a star athlete? If an athlete was kept eligible because the school knowingly hid his involvement in a crime- and this gave them an advantage to win a game- then yes, that needs to be addressed. Then again I've said this multiple times already. You were asking others about what's fair. Looking for clarification on where you stood Right, and none if it is fair. It wasn't fair to the students, players and University at USC after Reggie Bush, at UM after Ed Martin and PSU after Sandusky and so on. It's never fair because the punishment happens long after the perpetrators are gone. But it's the only way the NCAA can try to prohibit and punish the school. It's precedent that goes back decades. To put it another way, fuck PSU and the NCAA. If they get Joepa wins back, then as a Michigan fan I want my banners back. The NCAA decimated UM basketball, those students, fans, administration will never get that back. But now it's all better at PSU?
|
|
|
Post by The Hoff on Jan 18, 2015 9:31:35 GMT -5
But then don't you fall into the same trap of punishing the innocent? Taking away the win from all of the students who played and won punishes those who played by the rules. See i.e. USC/Reggie Bush. Bush met with agents, voiding his amatueur status. USC lost wins and a championship. I do't think anyone would argue that pulling his Heisman was appropriate. Why punish the team (and FUTURE teams and players by taking away bowls) for conduct of one student? At the time USC was bowl ineligible, Bush was no longer at USC, and some of the students who could not go to bowl games had not even enrolled at USC yet. How is that fair? I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a precedent that has been set, is completely written within the NCAA rules, and unfortunately has to be in place. If a school could constantly "cheat", knowing that only the player would be held accountable- then the school would have no reason to discontinue these actions. Regardless of the other people on the team- they were (maybe unknowingly) participating with someone who cheated to help them win. With Sandusky- there is/was no connection to the players and him fûcking kids in the butt had no bearing on them winning or losing games. They won with him and won without him. There was no written rule or precedent for the NCAA to take action as it was a criminal matter... He broke criminal rules. Paterno turning a blind eye was enabling criminal activity- not activity that was directly intended to give PSU an unfair advantage on the football field. But there was a connection between Sandusky and the Program. AFTER he was caught, he was allowed to use the PSU facilities for his camps, which were grooming opportunities, and he maintained an office in the athletic building. PSU knew, and JP knew, there was a predator in their midst, and yet they did nothing to stop it, because they did not want to harm JP's legacy. So while there may not have been a connection to wins and losses, there was a clear relationship between Sandusky and the PSU Football program. So the "didn't involve the program" mantra is not quite accurate. And we don't think PSU turned a blind eye because the camps were also soft recruiting opportunities? That seems naive.
|
|
|
Post by philly on Jan 18, 2015 9:40:00 GMT -5
I don't think Sandusky was interested when they were old enough to be recruits.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 9:42:59 GMT -5
You were asking others about what's fair. Looking for clarification on where you stood Right, and none if it is fair. It wasn't fair to the students, players and University at USC after Reggie Bush, at UM after Ed Martin and PSU after Sandusky and so on. It's never fair because the punishment happens long after the perpetrators are gone. But it's the only way the NCAA can try to prohibit and punish the school. It's precedent that goes back decades. To put it another way, fuck PSU and the NCAA. If they get Joepa wins back, then as a Michigan fan I want my banners back. The NCAA decimated UM basketball, those students, fans, administration will never get that back. But now it's all better at PSU? I actually have never really liked the process of how the NCAA basically shuts down a program and punishes kids who were not involved- but that is almost a necessary evil and FWIW- the NCAA gives those players all an open invite to transfer without penalty to any other DIV I program when it happens. Those who stay do so on their own accord. I unfortunately don't think the PSU Decision should have any influence on Michigan getting their banners back. You are comparing apples to oranges
|
|
|
Post by The Hoff on Jan 18, 2015 9:43:27 GMT -5
I don't necessarily agree with it, but it is a precedent that has been set, is completely written within the NCAA rules, and unfortunately has to be in place. If a school could constantly "cheat", knowing that only the player would be held accountable- then the school would have no reason to discontinue these actions. Regardless of the other people on the team- they were (maybe unknowingly) participating with someone who cheated to help them win. With Sandusky- there is/was no connection to the players and him fûcking kids in the butt had no bearing on them winning or losing games. They won with him and won without him. There was no written rule or precedent for the NCAA to take action as it was a criminal matter... He broke criminal rules. Paterno turning a blind eye was enabling criminal activity- not activity that was directly intended to give PSU an unfair advantage on the football field. But there was a connection between Sandusky and the Program. AFTER he was caught, he was allowed to use the PSU facilities for his camps, which were grooming opportunities, and he maintained an office in the athletic building. PSU knew, and JP knew, there was a predator in their midst, and yet they did nothing to stop it, because they did not want to harm JP's legacy. So while there may not have been a connection to wins and losses, there was a clear relationship between Sandusky and the PSU Football program. So the "didn't involve the program" mantra is not quite accurate. And we don't think PSU turned a blind eye because the camps were also soft recruiting opportunities? That seems naive. And just so I understand your logic-it's ok for NCAA to issue a punishment that punishes innocent athletes if they have issued that kind of punishment for the act before, but it's not not fair for the NCAA to issue a punishment that affects an innocent athlete if the NCAA has not punished that conduct before. Umm, where do you think precedent comes from? It starts from taking action. All precedent has a starting point. As for whether it violates the rules-it does, because of the broad mandate the NCAA has given itself to regulate conduct of the programs generally.
|
|
|
Post by joeking1978 on Jan 18, 2015 9:43:29 GMT -5
I don't think Sandusky was interested when they were old enough to be recruits. :rimshot
|
|
|
Post by The Hoff on Jan 18, 2015 9:44:45 GMT -5
I don't think Sandusky was interested when they were old enough to be recruits. PSU, like all schools, tries to recruit even before H.S. Age of the camps included pre-teens and teens.
|
|