Notre Dame Joe

I hope Mrs Bowden makes it through the day. feel free to ban me for that one.

I know. . . Maybe SEC is just good not sending emails or leaving paper trails.

Is that you Tad Foote?

If that all is true, Does anyone think that the penalty will be reduced on appeal? Something like a 5 year bowl ban is an effective DP, I can easily imagine it gets reduced when the issue moves out of the public eye. Also that fine raises my eyebrow, well both because I can't do The Rock's eyebrow. What does the NCAA do with the money? Why do they get it? Shouldn't it go to the victims? I get that when the ABC Corporation defrauds shareholders, the Feds intervene and levy a fine on ABC. In theory that deters companies like ABC and Uncle Sam spend that money on law enforcement to stop future crimes. I just don't see the NCAA fitting into that analogy. Apparently PSU has said they will NOT appeal the sanctions. The CBS Sports article said that the fine will go towards a charity. That's usually the case for all NCAA fines though. thanks. It's all academic in 2.5 hours

If that all is true, Does anyone think that the penalty will be reduced on appeal? Something like a 5 year bowl ban is an effective DP, I can easily imagine it gets reduced when the issue moves out of the public eye. Also that fine raises my eyebrow, well both because I can't do The Rock's eyebrow. What does the NCAA do with the money? Why do they get it? Shouldn't it go to the victims? I get that when the ABC Corporation defrauds shareholders, the Feds intervene and levy a fine on ABC. In theory that deters companies like ABC and Uncle Sam spend that money on law enforcement to stop future crimes. I just don't see the NCAA fitting into that analogy.

Florida and Alabama take notice. And Nebraska http://images.search...umb=Pm9uvqaowfK And Notre Dame.

This sounds right to me. I believe evil is buried in somewhere in every man's heart. The potential to be motivated to commit atrocities we normally would abhor is built into the mind. And I'll not digress too much, but a lot of massacres get barely a footnote in popular history because they did not take place in The West but in the "other" part of the world. When you read about what they did with blades, you wonder what might have happened if panzers and gas chambers were on all continents. as for it could never happen here, that is a line that gets carelessly tossed around in response to many awful things. Someone even said it wouldn't happen at Notre Dame. [We fire our legends for going 9-3] He was of course shouted down by other posters. Do they not have something like that? I'd imagine a school that large has strong departments of Psychology, Medicine, Social Services, Criminal Justice and others. If not I'm pretty sure PSU will be putting some serious $ into a research and advocacy fund.

For @ 20 years people laughed at the Big East for rejecting PSU's application saying it was one of the all time dumbest decisions. Fortune is fickle.

Total disrespect of Rose Hulman itt.

I don't know where the lines are drawn, hence the "any stats." TV ratings? ticket sales? When someone buys a Huskers shirt at Walmart is that counted as football revenue?

True that, this is the moment for the NCAA, will they be a weak excuse for a governing body or actually step up and do their job. It is a sad story but shouldn't be ignored. Fans should question whether their own programs are governed properly to ensure that coverups can not be perpetrated. Question the wisdom in building a statue of a coach to worship at. I read that OSU's board did not let their team go to the Rose Bowl back in the 60s because football was detracting from the true mission of the university-academics. When did football programs begin to run universities? Probably about the time Buckeye faithful rioted on campus upon learning a bunch of insecure old men with tenure took away their Rose Bowl.

Strictly to play devil's advocate. Do you agree that the conference should be allowed to kick PSU out of the conference if it feels that PSU has embarrassed the conference? What is being proposed is a council of presidents to develop sanctions if a coach embarrasses the conference (which may include termination at the extreme) which would be carried out by Delaney, its not Delaney that would be holding all this power. Also, remember that Delaney does not make these decisions, if you feel this is a stupid idea and it gets approved call the university presidents "clowns," not Delaney he does not get to make unilateral changes to B1G bylaws. I should clarify that I don't agree with the proposal (this was for arguing purposes only) and that the conference should hold the schools accountable, not an individual, but do remember who to direct your frustration at: Delaney only has as much power as the presidents extend to him. I do not think they should be kicked out, but recieve the SMU treatment, it will help recruiting out of penn and show that when there is an issue like this that is bigger than sports or the reputation of a university, that they should get the death penalty to show this will never happen again and that it should have never happened. As far as presidents having to agree on different subjects about power and changes etc I would count them just as responsible. I havent read a lot into this yet but do you really think it was someone other than delaney that proposed this? Sure it has to get approved but who was the first to shout out the idea? I'm sure it was Jim, quote me if I'm wrong because like I said I haven't read a lot into this. No clue who proposed it, it could have been an AD, a president, or Delaney (it is pure speculation at this point as I have not read anything stating who's idea it was, I could just as easily see an AD or president thing this is a good idea as Delaney as it would take the heat off the AD or president to pull the trigger on a beloved coach). But back to the PSU thing, my question is do you think the presidents of the conference should have the power to kick PSU out if they wanted to (they currently do have that power according to RIttenberg), not whether you think they should actually kick them out. I bring this up simply b/c it is comparable though different in scale to the conference deciding a school should fire (more likely apply sanctions if anything) someone, because it would be the presidents that make the decision on a case by case basis; according to the preliminary stories (though again, I do not agree they should, I still think the conference holds the school responsible, not an individual coach). well the Big East kicked out Temple for losing so much, how did that work out? If you can do it for that you can do it for harboring a pedohpile. While you're at it you could get rid of Purdue. btw are there any stats on who the top 'producers' of $ are in your conference? I would guess 1. anOSU 2. UM, 3. PSU. 4. NU.

That is especially impressive considering ND doesn't shirt. I think they shirt, they just aren't allowed to call it that. They label them by the normal years and then add "5th year seniors." It might be a hold over from when schools fielded freshmen football teams who would play on Friday nights.

The football team is marketing department of big universities. They would essentially be telling a business that they can still make products but not run ads with they're competitors. btw: what would happen to their partners if they couldn't maintain the cash flow they contracted for? Say said business was one of the biggest producers in an association with 11 others? The group is more important than the one. No one "business" is more important than the entire corporation. Divest of a liability and seek a replacement. One could look north and south, east and west, around every bend of the river. There can be no trend to ignore, no river that can't be damed and tamed. Lately many lawyers have pierced the corporate veil. If one business trips up then they can infer that the everyone's enterprise in the competed was an accomplice. Without limited liability you wind up with everyone becoming interdependent.

SUCKS. It's a complete conflict of interest for the media to own the business and also report its news. I think its clear the SEC was good before ESPN got their day games. Mickey soon figured out that Sparty @ NW at 1pm EST wasn't going to bring home the bacon in the long run. VA HUsker, you missed a team and a network I'm still tiffed that NBC didn't get the PAC contract because at least there would be some diversity. The biggest problem with ESPN is that they are a monopoly or close to it. I can't understand why CBS, NBC, and FOX can't build respectable cable channels to compete with MIckey's. (I have CBSCS buried on channel 187 with a weak signal and boring ass programming. VS was as interesting as bicycling can be). There shouldn't be one giant company running so much of CFB. There's a reason why the scandals of the decade were broken by tiny outfits like Yahoo Sports.

The football team is marketing department of big universities. They would essentially be telling a business that they can still make products but not run ads with they're competitors. btw: what would happen to their partners if they couldn't maintain the cash flow they contracted for? Say said business was one of the biggest producers in an association with 11 others?

Perhaps we're seeing the first wave of answers to last month's question, "Will teams schedule tougher opponents so they will make the playoff?" Does this mean the PAC decided that it's more important to get to 11-1 than to reach 11 or 10 wins with a quality SOS? Everybody wants 7 home games. That becomes more difficult when you play a 9 game regular season and have a home and home with another BCS school. Much easier to schedule a smaller school and guarantee a home game or even two. or 6 home games and two neutral sites 9 conference games, 1 cross conference game, 1 cross sectional rival, leaves one slot open for Sacramento State. Problem solved!

I've missed two ND games in the last 6 years and one had to be 0-5 ND @ 4-1 UCLA. At least I didn't miss any offense touchdown drives. http://en.wikipedia....tball_team#UCLA

Maybe they are. I doubt if many Penn State jerseys are being sold these days. If I was a Penn State fan I don't think I'd be wearing a Penn State football jersey for a while. In view of all that's happened with that program. I saw an interview today on ESPN today with a writer from Penn State and he said to put it inside the musuem.. I guess I would agree with that, but they need to make sure its in the past as soon as possible. I think the statue should be covered up for 14 years.

Incorrect. The negative publicity generated by outing Sandusky as a child rapist would have almost certainly hit Penn State in terms of recruiting and donations. They covered up Sandusky's actions to protect the school and more specifically the football program from negative publicity. They didn't do it to protect Sandusky. Granted, PSU is about to get repaid the negative publicity with interest, but that's not enough. If the NCAA wants any credibility to continue dealing with institutional control problems, they have to drop the hammer on PSU. I'm not saying death penalty, necessarily (although I'm personally in favor, as I think NCAA sanctions would work better if they actually did some damage), but if OSU loses a bowl game and some scholarships because Tressel covered up his players getting free tattoos, how could the NCAA possibily justify not hitting Penn State several times harder? Is PSU somehow exempted because it was paid employees doing stupid things instead of amateur athletes? I think the message the NCAA wants to send is that if you inform the outside authorities, your football program won't suffer. The NCAA should not declare that there is a competitive advantage to covering this up. They should not equate a reputation hit to a competitive advantage. Imagine a case at another school where there McCreary sees something and then "oh by the way this was going on for a while and they'll think we knew about it." Secondly, deterrence isn't needed here like it is in Miami et al. That was sports cheating that would restart once people turned their backs. It would not in PSU's case, thankfully. The NCAA policies things that not crimes, for the most part. PSU, and therefore the state taxpayers, is going to get hit with millions in lawsuits. Add that to the fact that the concealers will get put on trial and may serve time. So who's left to deter? The university official that is willing to risk arrest and huge civil lawsuits on himself, but draws the line at the football team.

and ND had our 2013 rematch with Dennis Erickson cut off because he couldn't win ONE more game vs craptacular competition last year. Aside from Cal Southern, you can't rely on that conference for anything.

Especially after that royal screwjob they pulled in the Fawz Bowl Fawz Bowl? What the heck? lol The Wiki says that William Peter Blatty wrote the book it was based on. William Peter Blatty of Exorcist fame. John Goldfarb actor was Colonel Trautman in the Rambo movies, which I've been watching all day. The things you learn on the IMDB.

Because of the California Four. USC, UCLA, Cal and Stanford were split up with two in each division (allowing the California recruiting to still be equally advantageous to the other non-California based teams in both divisons) BUT all four still want to play each other every year. To accommodate that, the conference uses a 9 game schedule. 2 [NCAA mandated] halves of the conference with 4 teams having 2 protected cross-over rivalries. It makes as much sense as the NFL's sense of geography.

shouldn't each vote get multiplied by his number of national titles?

Perhaps we're seeing the first wave of answers to last month's question, "Will teams schedule tougher opponents so they will make the playoff?" Does this mean the PAC decided that it's more important to get to 11-1 than to reach 11 or 10 wins with a quality SOS?