[Husker] Penn State's Penalties

[Scott Stewart]

I think the next "lack of institutional control" is already in the
pipeline. I don't recall that Miami's penalty has been handed down for 8+
years of infractions (money, drugs, girls, and abortions).

This was one of my concerns about the NCAA action on PSU. I think they
chose the wrong stage to display their muscle. On the other hand, nobody is
going to appeal or argue with them right now. So maybe it was the right
place.

I really don't mind PSU getting the boot, they deserved every bit of what
they get. However, their infractions were not really related to putting
players on the field. So now what kind of sanctions do they need to give
Miami? As someone said in an earlier post, "School X's penalty
is equivalent to raping three children." I think this is a very dangerous
road to go down for them if they want to be seen as relevant.

Also, I see this as essentially taking the "Death Penalty" off the table.
Because if you decide to give out a penalty for child abuse and don't use
it...What kind of infraction deserves it? Paying a player....Really?
(Personally, I think the "death penalty" could be appropriate for JS...but
not figuratively).

I don't know, I have a lot of mixed feelings about it.

Scott
On Mon, Jul 23, 2012 at 4:00 PM, Nick Chevance <nickchevance at gmail.com>wrote:

> > On the other hand, the NCAA has now set some dangerous precedents.
>  Hopefully there will never
> > be another case this bad, but precedents, once set, tend to be used
> again.  Call it the law of
> > unintended consequences, if you will.
> > --
> > Mike Nolan
>
> I agree, though remember one of the issues the NCAA is addressing here
> is their perceived lack of strong action in recent cases.  By
> comparison, it was pretty safe for the NCAA to issue these sanctions
> against PSU, because few seem to want to argue them now.  The
> situation is bad, and the University is loathed to seem anything but
> humbled by it.
>
> My concern is that I think some of the more recent issues (USC and
> OSU) may have called for more than what the school's got, but the NCAA
> failed to dish out greater punishment for fear of threatening the
> stability of these time-honored institutions (they all remember what
> happened to SMU).  They did what they are now saying they can't do,
> caved to the king that is football.  Now they're saying, the king is
> dead.  Or severely crippled, at least.  I'm hoping that when the next
> case of  "lack of institutional control" pops up, they nail them good.
>  As I think they should have been doing all along.  Anyone see any
> evidence that USC or OSU have been hurt by their sanctions?  I thought
> that was the point.
>
> Nick
> --
> “I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said,
> but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I
> meant.”
> Robert McCloskey, State Department spokesman
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>