Penn State gets wins back

[TellerMorrow34]

My problem with this argument is first, how is any former student athlete effected by this? Most are in their 30s and 40s, and have moved on from their athletic lives. They know they won on the field, so is this considered a punishment for them? Second, how is this any different from when the NCAA takes away wins from any other team? Reggie Bush takes money, the entire team gets their wins taken away, not just Bush.

And I don't agree with it with Bush either.

It's nothing that openly effects their lives, I wouldn't imagine, because they know they won but it's the principle of the fact that in the record books, when people go back eventually who weren't around to see them win and they see they didn't win, or there is that mark giving some explanation as to why they don't have those wins it puts a dark cloud over people who had zero to do with any wrong doing.

I don't personally agree with people getting punished, in any way, that had nothing to do with wrong doing. That's just me.

I'm not trying to convince anyone to agree.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

I just don't think it's a punishment to anyone unless they care about Joe Paterno's legacy. Now those people were being punished and outside of the school president, AD and Paterno, they had nothing to do with the subsequent inaction, but I really don't care if they feel punished.

 

[WV Cowboy]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/mor...and-insensitive/ar-AA8lBiT?ocid=ansSBNation11

In celebration of Joe Pa getting his wins back, which we can all agree was the most important thing, the Penn State Hockey team wore "409" stickers on their helmet. Way to go Penn State, keep it classy!

From the article:

Barbour later backtracked on her comments a bit--after multiple reminders from the Penn State community that the wins were more important than anything, so at least they've learned their lesson--to say "Thrilled that those victories earned by former PSU athletes and coaches are now again recognized".

Obviously, .. we gathered that.

 

[lothos05]

huge hole in your argument is this: once found out recruiting took a big hit. Right? So how was it NOT to PSU's advantage to cover it up? Therefore it WAS a competitive advantage and the NCAA was correct in slapping them down.

There's no hole. What there is though is a whole lot of gray area as evidenced by the settlement.

But for argument's sake, let's say they did gain a competitive advantage. The NCAA then has a clear cut case. Then there would be no need to settle.

But they did settle with Penn State.

Put it this way...Would you fold a royal flush?

 

[burmafrd]

There's no hole. What there is though is a whole lot of gray area as evidenced by the settlement.

But for argument's sake, let's say they did gain a competitive advantage. The NCAA then has a clear cut case. Then there would be no need to settle.

But they did settle with Penn State.

Put it this way...Would you fold a royal flush?

are you really that dense? What part of legal fees and long time rangling over details do you not get about lawsuits?

 

[Manwiththeplan]

There's no hole. What there is though is a whole lot of gray area as evidenced by the settlement.

But for argument's sake, let's say they did gain a competitive advantage. The NCAA then has a clear cut case. Then there would be no need to settle.

But they did settle with Penn State.

Put it this way...Would you fold a royal flush?

Whether the NCAA had jurisdiction or not is irrelevant to me, it happened and I would expect 2 elected officials to not include such a trivial detail in the negotiations. As representitives of Pennsylvania, they should insist on the $60 million being spent in Pennsylvania, but they should not include anything related to athletics in the negotiations. Had the NCAA called their bluff and went to trial, that would have been gross misconduct on their part to waste tax payer dollars, fighting for Joe Paterno's wins. And maybe the NCAA immediately gave in, I don't know, but an elected official acting on behalf of the state, should not have brought it up.

If the Paterno family had done this, I would have been fine with it. They are his children, grandchildren, ect and should fight for him, but I do not think the possibility of tax payer dollars being used for this should have even existed.

 

[Joe Realist]

a cartoon at philly.com

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/...n-State-legacy-409-wins-all-that-matters.html

 

[lothos05]

are you really that dense? What part of legal fees and long time rangling over details do you not get about lawsuits?

This settlement didn't come about from concern over legal fees nor were the three parties weary from less than two years worth of litigation. Show me where any of the parties were concerned over either. If the NCAA were so sure of the legality of their sanctions, they would have endured a few more weeks and proved their case in court. Instead, they saw the writing on the wall with the upcoming trial in February: they did not want to further disclose their process of how and why they reached their decision to sanction. The NCAA capitulated.

Now, getting back to the jurisdiction issue, the court did question the NCAA's right to act and even the NCAA recognized it's questionable involvement in the Consent Decree. From an article about the court's ruling in April of last year:

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefoo...urt-questions-ncaa-penalties-in-sandusky-case

On Wednesday, the Commonwealth Court dismissed the NCAA's challenge of that law that would keep the money in state. In a split decision, a majority of the seven-judge panel questioned the validity of the consent decree.

“ … given the many discrepancies between the consent decree and the NCAA constitution and bylaws, there exists genuine factual disputes,” said Judge Anne Covey in the majority opinion.

She questioned, “whether the NCAA acted in accordance with its constitution and bylaws.”

The court further wrote, “The Consent Decree expressly recognizes the NCAA's questionable involvement in and its dubious authority pertaining to a criminal action against a non-university official [Sandusky] which involved children who were non-university student-athletes.”

In his dissenting opinion, Judge Dan Pellegrini said he was “bewildered” Penn State would enter into agreement with the NCAA on issues that “ordinarily would not be actionable by the NCAA.”

I've said my peace regarding jurisdiction and supported it with the opinion of the Commonwealth Court and the NCAA's own words questioning their involvement within the Consent Decree itself. While you are more than welcome to disagree . . . do you have anything else besides choosing to internet shout certain key words or make a feeble attempt at casting insults? If you cannot be civil and mature in your response, then be on your merry.