Nice Move Ohio State?

[Woody Tressel]

I have always had a problem with punishing the players and team in future years. For example, Penn State. What happened is the most disgusting act known to mankind, but those involved have been dealt with and anyone now associated with the program has to pay for those douches.

How is this far to those that are there now?

 

[Muck]

I have always had a problem with punishing the players and team in future years. For example, Penn State. What happened is the most disgusting act known to mankind, but those involved have been dealt with and anyone now associated with the program has to pay for those douches.

How is this far to those that are there now?

Oh they're doing just fine. They just honored their latest undefeated/national/conference championship team.

I'll respond to your question with a question of my own...

How is it fair to humanity that these lunatics are allowed to have a team at all?

 

[Coqui]

So how's those two convicted felons of yours Fitz Touissant and Frank Clark? What? they played this season AFTER pleading guilty?

This stuff actually gets pretty old. It's almost like these posts between Michigan and Ohio State fans on this forum should just get moved to a dedicated shed section all of their own so the rest of us don't have to wade through them.

But since you commented on this, here's a real question: If the violation a player committed has *zero* to do with breaking an NCAA violation or has any connection to the football program, what difference does it make to the big scheme of things for FOOTBALL? So all of a sudden, we're saying that morality plays an impact in how the game is played on the field of play?

Where does that end?

And don't bring up Penn State - that was directly (as opposed to indirectly) involving the football program staff and university staff. I'm talking about crimes committed that have zero to do with the program or university.

Neither of what I brought up dealt with the NCAA. But he brought up the idea of Maurice Clarett since he was talking about felons (as far as I know, Tressel isn't a felon) When it comes to legal terms, the NCAA shouldn't involve itself.

However, regarding Penn State, it was a systematic coverup from the top down. It was the epitome of lack of institutional control.

 

[sd'sker]

So how's those two convicted felons of yours Fitz Touissant and Frank Clark? What? they played this season AFTER pleading guilty?

This stuff actually gets pretty old. It's almost like these posts between Michigan and Ohio State fans on this forum should just get moved to a dedicated shed section all of their own so the rest of us don't have to wade through them.

But since you commented on this, here's a real question: If the violation a player committed has *zero* to do with breaking an NCAA violation or has any connection to the football program, what difference does it make to the big scheme of things for FOOTBALL? So all of a sudden, we're saying that morality plays an impact in how the game is played on the field of play?

Where does that end?

And don't bring up Penn State - that was directly (as opposed to indirectly) involving the football program staff and university staff. I'm talking about crimes committed that have zero to do with the program or university.

Neither of what I brought up dealt with the NCAA. But he brought up the idea of Maurice Clarett since he was talking about felons (as far as I know, Tressel isn't a felon) When it comes to legal terms, the NCAA shouldn't involve itself.

However, regarding Penn State, it was a systematic coverup from the top down. It was the epitome of lack of institutional control.

i agree with your characterization of penn st., but i just think it was much bigger than the ncaa. but who else would have dealt with it (other than the punitive damages from the civil cases)?

 

[Muck]

i agree with your characterization of penn st., but i just think it was much bigger than the ncaa. but who else would have dealt with it (other than the punitive damages from the civil cases)?

Ostensibly the Department of Education under the Clery Act but when those sanctions come down they won't be crippling due to the political fall out that would result.

 

[sd'sker]

i agree with your characterization of penn st., but i just think it was much bigger than the ncaa. but who else would have dealt with it (other than the punitive damages from the civil cases)?

Ostensibly the Department of Education under the Clery Act but when those sanctions come down they won't be crippling due to the political fall out that would result.

i am ignorant on the clery act, would it be able to sanction the football team like the ncaa?

 

[Count 'Bility]

The cover-ups at Penn St took place to protect the football program. That is clearly obvious, regardless who's fault it actaully was. Hence, the program is the reason the situation was covered up at all. The program needs to be punished. No ifs ands or buts about it. If the NCAA is going to punish a USC for something that happened 5 years prior, then yes, this is totally within their power. A precedent has to be set. An example has to be made, that when actual laws are broken and/or people are hurt, and a cover-up is executed for the sake of an athletic program, punishment of such program will be severe, and frankly, I feel should be more severe in these cases than rule violations. These are educational institutions for Christ's sake. If a program can't get punished for such thing, what the hell are we teaching. I know it's sad that folks that had nothing to do with it are getting "punished", but frankly, that's life in a nutshell. It's just too bad.

 

[sd'sker]

The cover-ups at Penn St took place to protect the football program. That is clearly obvious, regardless who's fault it actaully was. Hence, the program is the reason the situation was covered up at all. The program needs to be punished. No ifs ands or buts about it. If the NCAA is going to punish a USC for something that happened 5 years prior, then yes, this is totally within their power. A precedent has to be set. An example has to be made, that when actual laws are broken and/or people are hurt, and a cover-up is executed for the sake of an athletic program, punishment of such program will be severe, and frankly, I feel should be more severe in these cases than rule violations. These are educational institutions for Christ's sake. If a program can't get punished for such thing, what the hell are we teaching. I know it's sad that folks that had nothing to do with it are getting "punished", but frankly, that's life in a nutshell. It's just too bad.

just to be clear, i am not saying that psu should not have been punished, nor am i criticizing the decided punishments. also, you are right that it was to protect the football program, ergo the football program should be punished. i just do not have much respect for the ncaa as a compliance enforcer. this was much bigger than the ncaa, but they may have gotten this right. you brought up how it took 5 years to punish usc, this is precisely why i do not trust the ncaa to handle something as serious as this tragedy.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The cover-ups at Penn St took place to protect the football program. That is clearly obvious, regardless who's fault it actaully was. Hence, the program is the reason the situation was covered up at all. The program needs to be punished. No ifs ands or buts about it. If the NCAA is going to punish a USC for something that happened 5 years prior, then yes, this is totally within their power. A precedent has to be set. An example has to be made, that when actual laws are broken and/or people are hurt, and a cover-up is executed for the sake of an athletic program, punishment of such program will be severe, and frankly, I feel should be more severe in these cases than rule violations. These are educational institutions for Christ's sake. If a program can't get punished for such thing, what the hell are we teaching. I know it's sad that folks that had nothing to do with it are getting "punished", but frankly, that's life in a nutshell. It's just too bad.

just to be clear, i am not saying that psu should not have been punished, nor am i criticizing the decided punishments. also, you are right that it was to protect the football program, ergo the football program should be punished. i just do not have much respect for the ncaa as a compliance enforcer. this was much bigger than the ncaa, but they may have gotten this right. you brought up how it took 5 years to punish usc, this is precisely why i do not trust the ncaa to handle something as serious as this tragedy.

oh i agree. the ncaa is a joke. Remember the Dez Bryant situation? They just show over and over their imcompetence. This whole Penn St situtation is bigger than the NCAA, but to me, that doesnt mean that the program should go unpunished. I dont know. to me it's king of like shooting a clerk to steal 50 bucks. Just cuz you're getting charged for murder, should you not get charged for robbery?

 

[Notre Dame Joe]

The cover-ups at Penn St took place to protect the football program. That is clearly obvious, regardless who's fault it actaully was. Hence, the program is the reason the situation was covered up at all. The program needs to be punished. No ifs ands or buts about it. If the NCAA is going to punish a USC for something that happened 5 years prior, then yes, this is totally within their power. A precedent has to be set. An example has to be made, that when actual laws are broken and/or people are hurt, and a cover-up is executed for the sake of an athletic program, punishment of such program will be severe, and frankly, I feel should be more severe in these cases than rule violations. These are educational institutions for Christ's sake. If a program can't get punished for such thing, what the hell are we teaching. I know it's sad that folks that had nothing to do with it are getting "punished", but frankly, that's life in a nutshell. It's just too bad.

just to be clear, i am not saying that psu should not have been punished, nor am i criticizing the decided punishments. also, you are right that it was to protect the football program, ergo the football program should be punished. i just do not have much respect for the ncaa as a compliance enforcer. this was much bigger than the ncaa, but they may have gotten this right. you brought up how it took 5 years to punish usc, this is precisely why i do not trust the ncaa to handle something as serious as this tragedy.

oh i agree. the ncaa is a joke. Remember the Dez Bryant situation? They just show over and over their imcompetence. This whole Penn St situtation is bigger than the NCAA, but to me, that doesnt mean that the program should go unpunished. I dont know. to me it's king of like shooting a clerk to steal 50 bucks. Just cuz you're getting charged for murder, should you not get charged for robbery?

The objections were more about whether the NCAA had jurisdiction to overlap with the Feds and State. Like in your example ifit was the delivery truck driver shot and robbed the clerk, should the truck's owner be sanctioned and lose the ability to hire new drivers. It's a moot point now as the NCAA can pretty much do what they want. Almost no one was going to stand up for the outcast when the kids got abused.

 

[Undone]

Neither of what I brought up dealt with the NCAA. But he brought up the idea of Maurice Clarett since he was talking about felons (as far as I know, Tressel isn't a felon) When it comes to legal terms, the NCAA shouldn't involve itself.

That was my point, Coqui - If an NCAA violation wasn't broken (as in the case of Frank Clark, let's suppose), why should the player be disallowed from playing? Where would that end?

 

[Coqui]

Neither of what I brought up dealt with the NCAA. But he brought up the idea of Maurice Clarett since he was talking about felons (as far as I know, Tressel isn't a felon) When it comes to legal terms, the NCAA shouldn't involve itself.

That was my point, Coqui - If an NCAA violation wasn't broken (as in the case of Frank Clark, let's suppose), why should the player be disallowed from playing? Where would that end?

Because the university shouldn't have to pay for something when the person doesn't not abide by their moral standards and code of conduct. Students that do it get kicked out of their university Athletes should at least get their scholarships pulled (my opinion)

 

[Undone]

First of all, I think you have it wrong when you say the the university will pay for it. These football players are part of a brand that brings in millions. So it's in the university's best interest to keep the stars on the field.

But secondly, my question again is, where does it end? Do you disallow a player from playing because of a felony? A misdemeanor, like jay walking? Disrespecting somebody's mom?

Those things have zero to do with football, if they didn't violate campus rules or NCAA rules (such as cheating so as to be a better football player, etc.).

 

[Coqui]

First of all, I think you have it wrong when you say the the university will pay for it. These football players are part of a brand that brings in millions. So it's in the university's best interest to keep the stars on the field.

But secondly, my question again is, where does it end? Do you disallow a player from playing because of a felony? A misdemeanor, like jay walking? Disrespecting somebody's mom?

Those things have zero to do with football, if they didn't violate campus rules or NCAA rules (such as cheating so as to be a better football player, etc.).

When you play football for a university, you are a public representative of that university. When you do something bad, your university does looks bad. And last I checked, criminal activity does violate campus rules.

So to further answer your question. All felonies, yes. misdemeanor, depends. Jaywalking? no. drug posession? Yes.

 

[HuskerThor]

they honor cheaters and felons in columbus.

Why does he have on Michigan credentials?