How is it possible that conference realignment can be shut down because of people protesting BYU's honor code, but Penn State and Baylor who have unabashedly cast aside any collegiate standards to run their respective athletic programs still continue to collect $$$ and positive press coverage without any commitment to restore their culture or any acceptance that was done reflects poorly on their institutions and college athletics as a whole?

(03-31-2017 01:35 PM)crex043 Wrote:  How is it possible that conference realignment can be shut down because of people protesting BYU's honor code, but Penn State and Baylor who have unabashedly cast aside any collegiate standards to run their respective athletic programs still continue to collect $$$ and positive press coverage without any commitment to restore their culture or any acceptance that was done reflects poorly on their institutions and college athletics as a whole?

1. I don't know that BYU was shut out because of that, but clearly it could have been a factor.

2. In the Club v. Wanting to get in the Club- Once your in...you're pretty safe.

One of the most startling things about the Penn State scandal was just how easy it could have happened to another school. After talking with a lot of their fans and doing a bit of research on my own, I've yet to find anything about Happy Valley that would suggest they are more predisposed to a situation like this unfolding. Simply put, the passion for football got out of hand, and the subsequent institutional failure by the administration resulted in horrific consequences. Sadly, this could have just as easily occured at OSU, Alabama, or any other big-name program. Indeed, a similar situation is currently unfolding at Baylor.

I understand that the NCAA's death penalty is not meant to be applied in situations such as this, but it's hard for me to understand why Penn State is nationally relevant at the given moment. Yes, those who were legally implicated by the Sandusky trial have been ousted. But the foundation of the problem was built by years of success in the football program. As Penn State returns to national prominence, the investment by the fan base will undoubtedly lead to yet another toxic environment that will allow for such atrocities to take place. With any hope, the administration has learned enough to successfully maneveur these pitfalls. But after seeing those fools honor Joe Pa this past season, I have my doubts.

(03-31-2017 11:23 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I disagree. I wish it was more common for people to say what they actually believe rather than what they think people want to hear. And that holds even if I disagree with their true opinion. In fact that holds especially if I disagree with their true opinion.

I don't think the poster was saying he wished this person hid their opinion; rather, I think he's bewildered that someone who would possess such status, would be dumb enough to say said opinion out loud. It doesn't seem like stupid people should be that successful.

(03-31-2017 07:37 AM)BearcatJerry Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 07:21 AM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 06:19 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 06:12 AM)subflea Wrote:  I have never felt any punishment from the NCAA was warranted. This was and always has been a legal issue.

Sent from my SM-N920P using CSNbbs mobile app

Completely agree. NCAA should be dealing with competitive balance issues. This is an issue of criminal behavior

If it was just about what Sandusky did I would agree. The problem was there was a cover up by university employees with intent to protect the football program. I absolutely believe the NCAA was warranted in punishing Penn State.

I am against the death penalty for the program. There are a finite number of athletic scholarships available and eliminating the penn state program gets rid of what 20-25 scholarships a year? The kids that would have gone to penn state don't suffer, but the kids that would have gone to various small schools whose scholarships are now going to different kids will. To me that is a high cost to pay.

I personally believe financial costs would be better. Foregoing TV money for X years, sending a portion of ticket gate to the NCAA...etc.

Lastly, what this guy said in this article is despicable. I don't get how anyone could even think that kind of thing, but I am really baffled by how anyone could lack the common sense to keep that opinion to themselves. What would possess someone to think saying that would go over in anyway other than awful?

I am not exaggerating when I say there is a common belief among the Penn State faithful that sees PENN STATE as the "Victims" in this...not the young men who were raped.

So honestly, the "common sense" is severely hampered. The trustee, honestly doesn't see the young men as "victims" but rather he sees them as beneficiaries of Penn State. And he is not an "isolated" person in this. I don't live far from the PA border and I have heard other Penn State people state a similar view on radio call in shows and in polite conversation.

In short, he sees no reason to "keep it to himself" because he honestly thinks he's part of the "innocent" victim group.

Even more troubling is how many of those fans believe that Joe Paterno was somehow not ethically culpable in the abuse. Franco Harris actually had the audacity to tell people last fall that the university owes Joe Pa's family an apology.

(03-31-2017 02:25 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 11:23 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I disagree. I wish it was more common for people to say what they actually believe rather than what they think people want to hear. And that holds even if I disagree with their true opinion. In fact that holds especially if I disagree with their true opinion.

I don't think the poster was saying he wished this person hid their opinion; rather, I think he's bewildered that someone who would possess such status, would be dumb enough to say said opinion out loud. It doesn't seem like stupid people should be that successful.

I get the distinction. I guess my point is lamenting how much harder it is to be honest than it is to be PC these days. I think it hampers communication which is a bigger detriment to society than non PC talk will ever be.

(03-31-2017 06:19 AM)RealDeal Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 06:12 AM)subflea Wrote:  I have never felt any punishment from the NCAA was warranted. This was and always has been a legal issue.

Sent from my SM-N920P using CSNbbs mobile app

Completely agree. NCAA should be dealing with competitive balance issues. This is an issue of criminal behavior

And, as we all know, they are doing exactly that...

(03-31-2017 04:25 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I get the distinction. I guess my point is lamenting how much harder it is to be honest than it is to be PC these days. I think it hampers communication which is a bigger detriment to society than non PC talk will ever be.

I won't turn this into a political discussion, except in a broad sense and say I believe in rational freedoms. The issue is, are you willing to enforce those freedoms? To do so, may require you to go up to anti-fa or BLM and dealing ...harshly, with certain people.

(03-31-2017 04:25 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 02:25 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 11:23 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I disagree. I wish it was more common for people to say what they actually believe rather than what they think people want to hear. And that holds even if I disagree with their true opinion. In fact that holds especially if I disagree with their true opinion.

I don't think the poster was saying he wished this person hid their opinion; rather, I think he's bewildered that someone who would possess such status, would be dumb enough to say said opinion out loud. It doesn't seem like stupid people should be that successful.

I get the distinction. I guess my point is lamenting how much harder it is to be honest than it is to be PC these days. I think it hampers communication which is a bigger detriment to society than non PC talk will ever be.

Absolutely true IMO

I think of a Conference as similar to a law or accounting partnership. You get to be a partner when you bring enough to the table to justify your getting a profit split. There is also a firms ethical standards, violate thus standards and your get remove as a partner. Even if the act is not a crime there is a separation. I think that concept needs to be enforced in Conferences.

Law and accounting firms do it to protect a reputation with customers. Conferences deal with a customer base (fans and TV) that substantially lack ethics.

(04-04-2017 08:58 PM)Eastside_J Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 04:25 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 02:25 PM)Recluse1 Wrote:  

(03-31-2017 11:23 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  I disagree. I wish it was more common for people to say what they actually believe rather than what they think people want to hear. And that holds even if I disagree with their true opinion. In fact that holds especially if I disagree with their true opinion.

I don't think the poster was saying he wished this person hid their opinion; rather, I think he's bewildered that someone who would possess such status, would be dumb enough to say said opinion out loud. It doesn't seem like stupid people should be that successful.

I get the distinction. I guess my point is lamenting how much harder it is to be honest than it is to be PC these days. I think it hampers communication which is a bigger detriment to society than non PC talk will ever be.

Absolutely true IMO

Respectfully I disagree, as I see the attention this story is getting as an example of the exact opposite. People are willing to be completely disrespectful to victims and ignorant to the facts, yet receive kudos from Penn State fans for being honest about their feelings?

The legs this story has gotten on this board and elsewhere show how easy it is to be 'honest' (and get publicity for it) while garnering support from like minded fans who feel that the crimes which were committed by Sandusky are in the past wish everyone could just move on. Unfortunately for them the pursuit of truth takes time, and moving on is not so simple for victims.

Consider this: by being honest, this guy made clear he is a complete as$hole. Think of how incredibly helpful that is.

I would say maybe even for victims.

I would so much rather be able to know someones opinion, decide whether their point of view is worthy of consideration, and be able to choose to listen and engage or not. Or in this extreme case, write the person off completely. When it comes to a guy like this isn't it kind of a relief to be able to say "Oh good, its not me, its definitely YOU"