The reason sanctions SHOULD hurt programs after the involved parties are gone.
Allow me to vent for a moment. I apologize if I am beating a dead horse or suddenly fed up with an old topic. However, I have listen to one too many people aggue that sanctions against programs are ridiculous because they punish kids and coaches who had nothing to do with the original activities. I have heard OSU, PSU, USC, and even us use that argument (mostly in regards to bball).
Programs are a product of legacies, short term or long, and anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. When a program like OSU football, or UofM baseketball has a successfull run, it allows them to increase donations from the alumni, and attract a higher caliber of recruits.
Nobody remembers that wins have been vacated from that legacy. Lane Kiffin is recruiting kids now by telling them about all of the success USC has had over the past 15 years. OSU is marketing their success in the Big Ten and BCS through the Tressel years, etc.
Whether they admit it or not, I think many programs would be OK with a scenario where you use shady recruiiting practices to bring in elite talent, and turn a blind eye for a few years while they run roughshod over your campus but succeed on the field to the tune of national coverage and championships, if you knew you would only be punished later with vacated wins and show cause labels on fired coaches. By the time that happens, you will have a name to sell, more elite kids coming in, and you can play the "this had nothing to do with the kids who are here now" card.
You punish the current program because it is directly benefitting from the success had via improper methods. Period. If I hear another OSU fan, of which I know too many, poo poo about how badly OSU is being treated for a couple of kids that aren't even there anymore selling their own stuff for tats I am going to explode. Players running the show at OSU allowed them to continue to attract other talented kids who prefered the idea of less oversight to what they would find at schools playing by the rules. Those players allowed OSU to play on National TV in BCS bowl games and build the brand they are now selling. They got off easy.
August 16th, 2013 at 3:59 PM ^
DA "U"
August 16th, 2013 at 4:03 PM ^
do you really feel???
August 16th, 2013 at 4:04 PM ^
Is this related to anything relevant or are you just using us to vent after having an argument?
August 16th, 2013 at 4:11 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 4:33 PM ^
So seems like this comment should have gone in that thread, no?
August 16th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
I clicked on that title expecting to find the Friday Drinking Thread here. Imagine my surprise.
August 17th, 2013 at 6:33 AM ^
+2369 Funny (Since points don't mean anything anyway, why limit myself to one point at a time? Just don't get on my bad side, though, or you'll really be sorry.)
August 16th, 2013 at 5:33 PM ^
Pict makes my mind read your comments in Bob Barker's voice. Which is oh so awesome.
Thank you.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 4:05 PM ^
I still can't get over the fact that OSU celebrated Tressel last year at The Game.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:36 PM ^
It's nice when villians ditch the pretenses and just embrace their fundamental nature.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^
The irony was really amazing. I was at the game with a family member who happens to be an OSU alumnus. As the crowd was going wild, I asked him why they were celebrating a guy whose actions prevented the 2012 team from having a national title shot. He just laughed.
There is really no defending a guy who burned down his program to save Terrelle Pryor.
August 17th, 2013 at 12:52 AM ^
Ohio fans are so steeped in denial and their perception of "their" school as all that is good about collegiate sports that they think Tressel got screwed over "a couple of tats." Of course they celebrated him.
Denying everything and admitting nothing got them a "punishment" that allowed them to hire Urban Meyer, and they are positioned to make the national "championship" game this year, as long as they don't run into a Maize and Blue roadblock along the way.
I think the roadblock will happen. Since I don't think either team can beat the other twice this year, I hope Michigan beats undefeated Ohio in the Big Ten Championship game and ruins their dreams.
August 17th, 2013 at 1:25 AM ^
I too was initially shocked by the Tressel celebration but then I put it in context of the fan base and their inability to put things in context outside of what is right in front of them. ---->Squirrel
August 16th, 2013 at 4:09 PM ^
This is what I would have gave PSU
- No football games played for 4 years (2012-2015)
- No practicing allowed until after year 2 of the 4 year ban (spring 2014)
- No athletic scholarships to be given until the ban from play is over (post NSD 2016)
- Drop the program to FCS level for a minimum of two seasons with an option to move back up to FBS if the school chooses.
- Vacate ALL victories while Sandusky was collecting a paycheck until 2011. That would be 1969-2011.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:17 PM ^
I don't know that agree with all of your specific penalties, but I sure as hell agree with you that they didn't get punished hard enough, and the fact that the prevailing narrative from their alumni base and students is that they are the victims/they're rallying around such an ideology tells me that they still just do not get it. Death penalty for at least 1 year should've been the starting point in the discussion.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:22 PM ^
Well, irrational vengeance is one way to react to the Penn State scandal.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:04 PM ^
Indeed. By the time you get to that sort of penalty, it might as well include "raze the stadium and force them to play at the nearest high school." I thought we were past the stage of holding contests to see who can display the most outrage over Sandusky by coming up with the meanest penalties.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:30 PM ^
what does the Big Ten do?
Since you need 12 teams to hold a conference title game, would they not hold a title game in 2012 and 2013? Petition the NCAA for an exemption to that rule?
That would be a scheduling nightmare for the Big Ten wouldn't it? 11 teams for 2 years, 13 teams for the next 4. Without taking the time to do the math, could you guarantee all the teams will play the same amount of conference games?
August 16th, 2013 at 8:45 PM ^
would have impacted the Big Ten. If one of their members misbehaves badly enough, they feel some of the punishment, not so much different than the players at PSU.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:13 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 4:34 PM ^
Here's the problem. The season is SO close. I can't wait for it to start, and the recyclced offseason Michigan fluff isn't enough. So one day, I'm bored at work, and there's nothing new or interesting to read about college football.
So I think to myself, hey maybe I should go over to 11W or RCMB to get the rivals' perspectives? Sweet Flying Spaghetti Monster, I hate those websites. I don't know how the people who post there get any enjoyment, as they seem to bicker with each other ALL THE TIME.
But this is Rock Bottom, and alcoholic:mouthwash::me:11w
August 16th, 2013 at 4:20 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 4:31 PM ^
Yes, the program needs to be punished, but your logic seems a bit off:
"...allowed them to continue to attract other talented kids who prefered the idea of less oversight to what they would find at schools playing by the rules."
What about the great recruits who think "wow, look at how good that team is, I want to play for a great team like that." That's not "preferring the idea of less oversight," it's just wanting to be part of a winning program with huge national exposure.
These kids weren't being immoral by picking these schools. How were they to know that they weren't following the rules at the time, especially if the sanctions come years later?
August 16th, 2013 at 4:35 PM ^
You guys are missing the point of the argument. When the fuck did Michigan get a Baseketball team? Who is our psyche out leader?
August 16th, 2013 at 4:37 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 4:38 PM ^
I think, in retrospect, that what the kids at OSU did was nothing. I hate Ohio State but a person selling their stuff or signing an autograph to get a piece of the action is not only alright, it is a crime that an organization can make a rule saying you can't. I hear you all say that but they get a free education and I have to pay for mine. How much money have you made the University?
August 16th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
on kids which they are then allowed to sell? The richest, most popular school "pays" best? or a booster brings a limo full of his good buddies to an "autograph signing" to shower a player or recruit with $50K? Lots of problems with what you're saying. I don't mind the idea of a decent stipend for these kids, but the core of the problem is the false sense of amateurism is a huge part of what make college football so popular. Without it we just have a shitty version of the NFL.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:27 PM ^
Totally agree with both points: yes to some more money, no to much else. Players at BCS schools should be making some more money off the deal. Drawing the line at BCS schools since a decent number of those schools are actually making money off the athletics, whereas most other schools are not.
Doing significantly more--letting student/athletes sell memorabilia, letting much of any other outside money--fundamentally breaks college football in my opinion. Maybe there's a better way to completely transform the NCAA where top players can be paid their worth and still distributes players enough that there's an interesting game on the field, but it's very hard for two reasons:
1) A huge number of teams are going to try to cheat, so you can't legislate principles--if you want to permit something, you have to come up with every way someone will try to abuse that permission, and make a rule against it--and those rules have to be enforceable.
2) If you go the opposite way in response to cheating--significantly relaxing limits--I think you destroy college football. Suddenly, there are only a few competitive schools because most institutions don't have as many alumni with deep pockets. Almost all top players are going to those schools. Parity is already a huge issue, but this would exacerbate it dramatically more, and the result is very few interesting games to watch.
Yes, the NCAA is incredibly hypocritical about amateurism, but I don't see many other ways to maintain a reasonable level of parity. If it would have made a difference in Denard returning for his senior year, I'm sure the university could have found someone to pony up $1 million for Denard, and maybe gotten a fun t-shirt or signature in return. All Denard did in that scenario was sell memorabilia, so it's legal--who's to prove that there's a side-agreement that he's now returning for his senior year?
August 16th, 2013 at 4:53 PM ^
Just a lazy argument. Yes some football players are worth more than their scholarship can be valued at. But that isnt known when they sign up for the deal, which is before they even play a down for the team.
The current system is INSURANCE. It is designed to pay for volleyball players' and wrestlers' scholarships with the profits from football and basketball. It doesn't matter that a single player may be worth more than his scholarship, much like it doesn't matter that I haven't been to a doctor in years yet I still pay my healthcare premiums.
Some clarifications:
1. I'm down with the full cost of attendace / stipend thing, since it treats all scholarship athletes the same.
2. Yes, I know our school is different, and we are covered in money like that motorcycle dude in the shitty geico ad. Sure we could afford to give our athletes more money. But some schools' athletic departments are broke.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:54 PM ^
I agree with you on the point that kids should be allowed to sell their stuff if they want. I think it was much, much worse that Tressel didn't report the violation when he knew about it.
August 16th, 2013 at 7:53 PM ^
Agreed. Plus, there culd be a web site where boosters could make their competing offers for his or her memorabilia before the athlete commits, so he or she has all the information necessary to make the decision about which school to "attend." Tressel probably didn't report the memorabilia-for-drugs violation because he was ashamed of how little his players were getting for their stuff.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:08 PM ^
1. How much money has a volleyball player made for the university? If you are going that route then you need to argue in favor of pulling all scholarships not in revenue sports or you'll find yourself in hypocrite territory.
2. Ohio didn't get hit with sanctions because of players getting tattoos, they got hit with sanctions because their head coach lied and tried to cover it up. Big difference.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:12 PM ^
Stop bringing facts into this argument!
August 16th, 2013 at 5:41 PM ^
but the bigger deal to me was the cover up by Tressell.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:48 PM ^
I don't think that most kids choose schools because they think they can get away with doing bad things. Most kids probably choose Auburn, Mississippi State, Ohio State, and Bama for a chance to compete for championships.
But I do agree that schools will keep doing this because the pros far outweigh the icons. --Auburn paid recruits to win a championship, and had they had a better and more established coach, probably would still be showing some success. If Oregon skips a beat, it will have more to do with Chip Kelly leaving for the Eagles than losing their Rivals subscription. Penn State is still going strong despite the sanctions because of 40 years of success while both unknowingly and then knowingly sheilding a pedophile.
I could go on, but I think the point is made.
August 16th, 2013 at 4:52 PM ^
You make some reasonable points, but it really comes down to how much institutional involvement and knowledge there is. You can't throw a blanket over every case and say that that's how they all need to be handled
August 16th, 2013 at 4:57 PM ^
This is a terrible argument. To say someone benefited from it so they should be punished is just childish vengeance. This isn't the way the justice system works and its not the way the NCAA should work.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:44 PM ^
This rant in the OP focuses on the wrong point. It's not that the current players have benefited, it's that the NCAA has no credibility if they don't place the responsibility for compliance on the universities themselves.
The justice system has the jurisdiction to penalize the proper parties for violating laws. The NCAA has rules they've made on what people can and can't do while they're apart of an institution under the NCAA's control, which for players is 1-4 years. So if the NCAA wants to dole out penalties to some player because they decided that they don't care what the NCAA says the NCAA is SOL if that player has since moved on. To keep any credibility as a governing body moving forward they have to place the responsibility for complying to the NCAA's rules on the university.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:46 PM ^
But the problem remains they have no rules for something like this. The rules are, we are the NCAA and we can do whatever we want. We answer to no one.
I understand its different circumstances. I'm just asking the OP if he believes that there should be no limits to punishing anyone who benefits from a bad set of circumstances.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:05 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 5:15 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 5:22 PM ^
Duh.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:11 PM ^
I get that this is in direct response to the Bacon post - because gawd help MGoBloggers if they can't just post in a single thread about a HOTSPORTAKE - but I'm just not seeing the relevance. I'm not knocking your feelings because they are yours to own, but this dead horse had dead horse babies that are already off in college.
OSU was unique in that the sanctions came very close to the offenses; Pryor basically left before he would have been suspended, and if memory serves me a right a couple of other kids basically bolted/left the team when the fallout started. Similar proximity happened at SMU if that ESPN doc was correct, as some of the involved players were still on campus.
But with PSU and to an extent USC, you really are punishing players who had nothing to do with the cause of those sanctions. I get that the coaches and the administrators are still there and punishing them obviously will have an adverse effect on the players, but that doesn't mean it is "unfair" on an objective scale to punish them and the fans because of horrible decisions made by a couple of men who failed horribly at their jobs. And as the ultimate kick in the balls, guys like Tressel, Kiffin, and Carroll seem to have landed on their feet rather well, raking in millions after the fact.
Maybe I'm reading the tea leaves incorrectly, but nobody but the worst fanboys are saying what happened with UM basketball, OSU football, USC, etc. is a travesty because people were punished. Those programs needed to be taught a lesson, and the NCAA basically has a pointy stick and a tank at their disposal with nothing in-between as it relates to punishment. But it does suck that a bunch of 17-year-olds who had nothing to do with Sandusky, Paterno, and the AD being horrible people arepaying the price. Not saying that isn't the reality and how it had to happen, but that in a perfect world you wouldn't need to slam a whole program in order to extract some public pound of flesh when, in many cases, the culprits are long gone.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:25 PM ^
I don't know if I'm horrified or impressed.
August 16th, 2013 at 6:05 PM ^
Dead horse babies had really impressive 40 times but also have concerns about leg injuries. Still, diamond-in-the-rough types.
August 17th, 2013 at 11:18 AM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 5:50 PM ^
I hear what you're saying about it probably forcing Pryor to the pros via the supplemental draft and not getting another year to showcase his talent (as well as the other players being suspended for some games) but didn't this matter come to light before the Sugar Bowl?
I'm trying to get out of the office late on a friday afternoon so not looking it up, but if my memory is correct, OSU and possibly the NCAA/public became aware of the wrong doing before the Sugar Bowl but the players were still allowed to play in the Sugar Bowl.
August 16th, 2013 at 6:12 PM ^
Definitely. I don't have the link around, but I remember that OSU pretty much knew months in advance that issues surrounding Tatgate existed and multiple emails were exchanged on that topic, but nothing much came of it. That was a failure by the school, and why I think the NCAA was so quick to jump on them.
My greater point is that some programs were punished reasonably close to the violations that it feels appropriate. But with PSU, you definitely see a temporal delay that unduly punishes players who were not involved in any meaningful way with the offending parties except, I guess, Paterno and the AD in their general capacities. Again, I'm not saying that isn't reality and that everyone suffers, but fans have a stronger argument about uneven punishment in that circumstance.