- Thread starter
- #1
I need a little more time to add to this discussion. i'll try to a little later on.
That article was the first thing i read this morning... i need to read it again after seeing these posts
No doubt. My op really referred to how back and forth even I've been on it and what should be done (self imposed and otherwise). If the football program really nets 53 million dollars per year, can't it pay off the lawsuits by itself in a few years or less simply by functioning? If it stops for 1 year like Bob Costas and others are calling for, restaurants, bars, hotels, gas stations, you name it, all begin to go under causing employees to lose their jobs, impacting their kids, impacting the banks, foreclosures ect.
What about other universities when PSU goes on the road? Not sure how much revenue that brings them for a weekend, but now they lose that as well.
Thats all im saying
Why would they pay the lawsuits when teh football program didn't do anything?? The University has insurance that will pay out most of the lawsuits. If you want it to come from football budget, you will be killing non revenue sports that money supports. The program is not going away for a year, a month or a day no matter what these pompous no nothing jackasses like Costas say. Why isn't he up on his soap box about the Red sox having this go on in their clubhouse, the Syarcuse basketball program (where ESPN hid a tape that was hard evidence of crimes until it was past statute of limitations...oh wait, that midget Costas is a Syracuse alum). Bottom line, Penn state is not going to self impose any shut down or any sort of probation that would hurt the program when the program has not violated an NCAA rule. These idiots in the media pontificating here the money should go need to do some more research as to where the money football makes actually ends up. What you need to realize is these clowns live and die for ratings/website hits.
I don't know about the bold: we'll see what develops. PSU may voluntarily offer some scholarship reductions - that's been shown to be an effective strategy in the past for schools that were under investigation (like Ohio St and South Carolina). They may do that as an admission of loss of institutional control, even though that did not go to competitive advantage.
I'd take that bet. If anything, I could see them doing a monetary punishment (portion of bowl money or TV money for a couple years) to aid victims of child abuse. Why cripple the vehicle that already does and can do so much more good?? How does penalizing PSU football help the victims at all?? That's what these idiot writers don't get, you are doing more damage to more innocent people by trying to cripple PSU football than leaving them alone and letting them raise an ass load of $$$ for RAINN and other organizations.
OSU and South Carolina had displayed clear LOIC by the letter of the NCAA law. taking their own slap on wrist was embarassing for NCAA. Those were actuall rules they have jurisdiction over.
Hmm. Might be a Claude Giroux avatar in your future. There is some ambiguity in the bylaws about the scope of the NCAA's authority in cases of 'loss of institutional control'. We agree, the experts I have read agree that they would be overreaching to apply a penalty. We also know that the NCAA has been inconsistent in doling out punishments, and there's going to be a lot of public pressure.
I'm not saying that PSU should make a pre-emptive strike by sacrificing some scholarships, I'm just noting that it's one strategy. Obviously, it would come with a cost, but it might provide some face-saving for the NCAA, that could dissuade them from the overreaching mentioned earlier. And will it appease all the haters? Hell no, but it might calm some of them down a bit.
"I've never seen anything as egregious as this in terms of just overall conduct and behavior inside a university and hope never to see it again," Emmert said during the interview. "What the appropriate penalties are, if there are determinations of violations, we'll have to decide.
i actually watched some exerpts from that interview and its funny how media ran with the sensational BS and failed to mentioned he said they can only punish if they find anything that broke their rules. I can see a punishment that affects the redirects some revenue to help prevent abuse. It keeps the NCAA from looking like the helpless limp dicks they are here and actually benefits the victims.
Sanctioning a program that did nothing will benefit nobody, redirecting funds and PSU becoming a leader in the future prevention of child abuse helps everyone.
So you agree with my contention that Emmert is making a play? Forcing the university to make some sort of concession, with implied threats?