Quote:
Originally Posted by loK2thabrain
I don't understand why not. iirc SMU got the dealth penalty for paying players and obv lying about it. How is covering for a rapist worthy of a lesser punishment? Does it boil down to the amount of people involved? I admit I could be missing something but from where I'm sitting they should get it worse than anyone has ever gotten it. **** PSU. Make an example out of them Goodell style.
I've harped on this before and got dismissed out of hand by folks like Richard Tanner, but I have a feeling the NCAA is going to come down really hard on Penn State due to "problems" in their own house.
Last fall, maybe a month or two prior to Sandusky's arrest, the Atlantic magazine featured a long form article, (i.e. "The Shame of College Sports"), by writer Taylor Branch. In his article Mr. Branch detailed the long and tortured history of the NCAA and their systematic exploitation of "student athletes" for profit - their profit. Many of these former athletes are fighting back and their lawsuits against the NCAA are headed to court. At some point in the not-too-distant future, the NCAA is going to be in the position of having to defend their actions and their policies in front of a jury going back many years. Many of those actions and policies are questionable - to say the least. (Mr. Branch examined the legal issues in the player lawsuits versus the NCAA in great detail in his article.)
The NCAA really can't put themselves in a position where they are perceived as "going easy" on Penn State at the same time that they have been systematically screwing athletes out of fair compensation. That kind of "double standard" - where coaches and institutions get away with felony crimes and punishment consisting of a slap on the wrist - while athletes lose their scholarships on a coach's whim - that will not look good to a jury.
The NCAA is going to "make an example" out of Penn State partly to ward off the perception that they are nothing more than a paper tiger willing to let coaches and programs get away with anything. Due to their own [legal] problems, they can't afford to foster that perception.
Last edited by Alan C. Lawhon; 07-12-2012 at 04:59 AM.
Reason: Minor edit.