(01-19-2015 08:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 06:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  

(01-17-2015 06:23 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  If a booster for the University of Miami gives a prospect and illegal drug to convince him to play for the U, I would say that said booster has run afoul of both the law and the NCAA. Your logic says otherwise. Unless you honestly think that Miami should go unpunished in such a circumstance, I advise you to rethink your approach.

If a booster gave a recruit an improper benefit and that act was also a violation of the law, then both an NCAA investigation in regards to the breaking of NCAA rules as well as a criminal investigation in regards to the breaking of the law would be warranted.

In the the Penn St case, only laws were broken. The NCAA had no authority.

Well, at least we agree that your statements to the effect of it being a criminal matter are irrelevant as we both agree that has no bearing on whether or not it is also a NCAA matter.

The remaining problem with your understanding is that you don't know what the NCAA does, or why it exists, which I think is why you feel that the PSU incident isn't in the NCAA's jurisdiction.

You seem to have forgotten that a lot of relevant people within the NCAA organization, as shown by the e-mails, didn't believe it was in the NCAA's jurisdiction. It was a VERY significant stretch of their authority.

Reality is there was a lot of public pressure to do something so they decided to do something whether they had the authority or not. Now a lot of presidents around the country are having 2nd thoughts and have been criticizing the NCAA and the general public isn't as focused, so now they have started reversing things (coupled with being forced to by the lawsuit).

And you seem to forget that a lot of relevant people at PSU, as shown by newspaper-published letters, feel that Joe cheated *and* looked the other way.

Big organizations will have individuals with diverse opinions, especially when said individuals are drawn to said organizations for their own motives.

I was responding to your comment that he didn't understand the NCAA. He just didn't agree with your opinion. So your insult was unjustified. Its very clear that NCAA jurisdiction was not clear.

It still bothers me to see PSU football on tv as if nothing even happened. And now pretty much all of the penalties assessed have been eliminated.

I know it is not the fault of the current players and coaches.

But I still believe there was a lack of control or (or put another way, an attempt to control what got out). And for that the football program at least should have paid a steeper price.

the fact that anyone associated with penn state cares about paterno's record in light of everything that happened is proof they are warped.

(01-19-2015 08:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 08:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 06:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 04:23 PM)MplsBison Wrote:  If a booster gave a recruit an improper benefit and that act was also a violation of the law, then both an NCAA investigation in regards to the breaking of NCAA rules as well as a criminal investigation in regards to the breaking of the law would be warranted.

In the the Penn St case, only laws were broken. The NCAA had no authority.

Well, at least we agree that your statements to the effect of it being a criminal matter are irrelevant as we both agree that has no bearing on whether or not it is also a NCAA matter.

The remaining problem with your understanding is that you don't know what the NCAA does, or why it exists, which I think is why you feel that the PSU incident isn't in the NCAA's jurisdiction.

You seem to have forgotten that a lot of relevant people within the NCAA organization, as shown by the e-mails, didn't believe it was in the NCAA's jurisdiction. It was a VERY significant stretch of their authority.

Reality is there was a lot of public pressure to do something so they decided to do something whether they had the authority or not. Now a lot of presidents around the country are having 2nd thoughts and have been criticizing the NCAA and the general public isn't as focused, so now they have started reversing things (coupled with being forced to by the lawsuit).

And you seem to forget that a lot of relevant people at PSU, as shown by newspaper-published letters, feel that Joe cheated *and* looked the other way.

Big organizations will have individuals with diverse opinions, especially when said individuals are drawn to said organizations for their own motives.

I was responding to your comment that he didn't understand the NCAA. He just didn't agree with your opinion. So your insult was unjustified. Its very clear that NCAA jurisdiction was not clear.

It wasn't an insult. I didn't say anything about your character, virtues, falts, etc.. You were just cherry picking and I pointed that out. And the NCAA's mission is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. He got it wrong. That's also a fact.

It's exceptionally clear that the NCAA was very much well within its jurisdiction. Look at the founding history and mission statement ("[t]he National Collegiate Athletic Association is a membership-driven organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes...on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life."). Randomly concluding that enabling a predator to use athletic facilities and good will to hunt and then hiding it to avoid a scandal and further a football team/athletic legacy isn't within the NCAA's jurisdiction based on the statements of several cherry picked individuals who happened to probably have substantial ulterior motives is amazingly biased and unsound.

For all those in denial about whether or not Paterno knew about the actions of Sandusky.

"Mr. Paterno: Well, I don’t know what you would call it. Obviously, he was doing something with the youngster.

It was a sexual nature. I’m not sure exactly what it was.

I didn’t push Mike to describe exactly what it was because he was very upset. Obviously, I was in a little bit of a dilemma since Mr. Sandusky was not working for me anymore.

So I told — I didn’t go any further than that except I knew Mike was upset and I knew some kind of inappropriate action was being taken by Jerry Sandusky with a youngster.

Q: Did Mike McQueary tell you where he had seen this inappropriate conduct take place?

Mr. Paterno: In the shower."

His own words damn him. You revere him and believe everything he said but, the one time he comes clean, you ignore him and say he knew nothing. "Priceless!!!"

(01-19-2015 06:49 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  No. It's to promote safety and well-being within the world of collegiate athletics, period. Hence all the rules regulating recruiting, grades, practices, etc., which are all off the field.

Just because something bad happens on a college campus does not automatically involve the NCAA.

(01-19-2015 06:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Well, at least we agree that your statements to the effect of it being a criminal matter are irrelevant as we both agree that has no bearing on whether or not it is also a NCAA matter.

The remaining problem with your understanding is that you don't know what the NCAA does, or why it exists, which I think is why you feel that the PSU incident isn't in the NCAA's jurisdiction.

Apparently you think that if someone gets shot on a college campus, the NCAA should be the first call out for help?

Why not, after all - doesn't the shooting affect the well-being of college athletics?

(01-20-2015 02:39 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 08:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 08:04 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 07:14 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(01-19-2015 06:51 PM)nzmorange Wrote:  Well, at least we agree that your statements to the effect of it being a criminal matter are irrelevant as we both agree that has no bearing on whether or not it is also a NCAA matter.

The remaining problem with your understanding is that you don't know what the NCAA does, or why it exists, which I think is why you feel that the PSU incident isn't in the NCAA's jurisdiction.

You seem to have forgotten that a lot of relevant people within the NCAA organization, as shown by the e-mails, didn't believe it was in the NCAA's jurisdiction. It was a VERY significant stretch of their authority.

Reality is there was a lot of public pressure to do something so they decided to do something whether they had the authority or not. Now a lot of presidents around the country are having 2nd thoughts and have been criticizing the NCAA and the general public isn't as focused, so now they have started reversing things (coupled with being forced to by the lawsuit).

And you seem to forget that a lot of relevant people at PSU, as shown by newspaper-published letters, feel that Joe cheated *and* looked the other way.

Big organizations will have individuals with diverse opinions, especially when said individuals are drawn to said organizations for their own motives.

I was responding to your comment that he didn't understand the NCAA. He just didn't agree with your opinion. So your insult was unjustified. Its very clear that NCAA jurisdiction was not clear.

It wasn't an insult. I didn't say anything about your character, virtues, falts, etc.. You were just cherry picking and I pointed that out. And the NCAA's mission is not a matter of opinion. It's a fact. He got it wrong. That's also a fact.

It's exceptionally clear that the NCAA was very much well within its jurisdiction. Look at the founding history and mission statement ("[t]he National Collegiate Athletic Association is a membership-driven organization dedicated to safeguarding the well-being of student-athletes...on the playing field, in the classroom and throughout life."). Randomly concluding that enabling a predator to use athletic facilities and good will to hunt and then hiding it to avoid a scandal and further a football team/athletic legacy isn't within the NCAA's jurisdiction based on the statements of several cherry picked individuals who happened to probably have substantial ulterior motives is amazingly biased and unsound.

You weren't responding to me. There's nothing "factual" about it when the NCAA can't even agree internally. Its an opinion. The NCAA didn't even fight it in court because there was obviously a significant risk of loss.