In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 2401
Online now 2315 Record: 18710 (2/25/2012)
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Your late to the party my friend.
The whole Clarrett thing never existed either, am I right?
Not too late to spot a dumbass
This post was edited by MichRedWingFan7 15 months ago
The NCAA is also a voluntary group that schools don't have to be apart of...
You said yourself that you know little to nothing about the details.
How can you comment if you have no idea what you're talking about?
Late enough to look like one!
Monopolistic..now you're getting it.
What did he do again? Nothing that affected anyone other than himself... How about the fab 5? That didn't happen either did it?
I think you have the monopoly on that one ... pun intended
What did Reggie Bush do?
Apparently your trying to get in on my business then!
BTW Nova, I hope I'm making you proud! Lol
This post was edited by OHSethIO 15 months ago
I don't think you really understand the meaning of ignorant. But that's besides the point. You're blaming people for pointing fingers while they have skeletons in their own closets. I agree, people do that. I try not to. And if I do, and somebody calls me out on my ignorance (as happened to you here), I tend to back away instead of antagonize.
Also, how long did that "we are.... going to suck for a long long time!" thing take to think up Hemmingway?
This post was edited by shavisimo2 15 months ago
Am I alone in thinking this board was actually better before it went VIP?
Are there posts you can't see or did you like the content better back then?
Well it was a toss up... Between that and "... Raping your kids when they come to watch our games" but it only took a few seconds
Content. Seemed like a better variety of posters that actually talked football instead of flaming.
Edit: There was always crap and flaming but the threads seemed a lot better whn discussing football.
Glad you went with "going to suck for a long time," it made more sense. Unless kids get raped in the stands during our games frequently. Surprisingly, I never noticed anything like that.
-No they didn't have to agree to "plea bargain", could have used the established process
-Pres absolutely has authority to make decisions for the University, he's the Pres
-Damage is always done to those that didn't commit the violation
-PSU agreed to not follow the previously agreed to protocol
-They didn't bring criminal sanctions against you
But other than that, you are spot on.
As far as the coercion goes, that's up to a court. The lawsuit says it was coerced. If it was, then points 2 and 4 are moot. I don't think they have much of a case there though without direct testimony from PSU people (which they may not want to get involved in) or some potential email discovery of the NCAA that says otherwise.
The heart of their lawsuit is the damage to PA residents. Sure, there's always collateral damage. The questions are the severity and standing. Again, it's up to a judge.
I suggest you read the lawsuit if you have not yet.
This post has been edited 2 times, most recently by shavisimo2 15 months ago
My issue is that its agreed to punishments. If yall chose to fight their standing in the case, I'd have sympathy for you. To say the President of the University couldn't enter an agreement for the University is just laughable IMO. If your board feels that he should have consulted them, sue him/fire him, but you can't negate the agreement.
You did not understand my post, sorry if I wasn't clear. Standing is about whether the governor/Paternos/former lettermen have standing to bring the suit (aka get into court). That is a legal principle, and will be determined by a judge.
As for the president, what you and posas talked about with him not being able to enter an agreement isn't even mentioned in the lawsuit. In fact, I agree with you that it's laughable. Although a coerced agreement, if they can prove coercion, would not be allowed and is not laughable (I think we'd both agree that if the NCAA made them agree under duress or coercion, it should not be allowed - nobody needs the NCAA President to go around making threats to follow him or he will kill their programs).
I agree with you because the board does support his decision (not all of the board, but enough). His contract explicitly did not allow him to agree to "significant financial decisions" without consultation of the board. He definitely did that. The problem with using that argument is that the board agreed with Erickson after the fact in a board meeting. So it was not even mentioned in the lawsuit.
Again, I ask you to read the lawsuit.
I did understand what you meant by standing. I was saying that if you had stood up to the NCAA the first time, and said its a criminal matter that the NCAA doesn't have standing to bring the action I'd have had sympathy for you. But the actions were agreed upon by the University, which makes this case seem laughable to me. I do agree that proving that any of these parties has standing to bring the case is the first hurdle, but I just don't see this going anywere regardless.
PSU says they couldn't have stood up to the NCAA, if they did they would have gotten the death penalty for four years. I'm not sure we can prove that is what occurred, but the state will try to do so.
Even if that is the case, that's like saying the person who took a life sentence was facing coercion as otherwise they could have had gotten the death penalty. It's the definition of an agreed to sentence. PSU agreed to penalties, as the other option was less attractive to them.
Your comparison is not valid. The argument isn't a "could have" it's a "would have."
Now, I agree that maybe the NCAA can say "we didn't need to do one." Maybe a judge will buy that, maybe he won't. That's not for you or me to decide.
As for the case being laughable, assuming as you did that the governor has standing, I think you should brush up on your law (or if you are brushed up, read the case as I have suggested 3 times now).
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports