Huskers Suspend 2 More

[MoseSchrute]

I expect the NCAA is all over this like stink on shit. Because there is some bs going on in this situation and everyone knows it.

I bet they aren't. They only care about "NCAA violations". They gave up any high ground they might've had on civil crimes after they let Pedo State slide on the original sanctions. Nothing's going to happen with this, anyway. Another kid who sent the video to his classmate got probation.

 

[99topdawg]

Nebraska just got running water last week, let's not get ahead of ourselves, here.

 

[Fryowa]

Great fucking movie.

But way too much for 95% of the snowflakes on this board.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I agree.
I'm just saying, what they are doing is definitely a question of morals, but maybe more importantly it is setting a precedence at the school. Because how can anyone be put on leave, or restricted from student activities for any crime? Not only a minor or misdemeanor crime but a felony as well.
Because the only question then becomes is one felony worse or better than the other. So a professor can get caught with 200 pounds of meth and not be suspended pending the outcome of the charge? Surly a professor's word and integrity is held in higher esteem is it not?
You get a half game suspension for a felony charge, then what do you get for a misdemeanor? A cookie?
Like I said it's a slippery slope and unfortunately it is slippery in several ways because of the slippery slope they made in the morality department. Once you start to slide, it's hard to stop.
I expect the NCAA is all over this like stink on shit. Because there is some bs going on in this situation and everyone knows it.
Maybe what they really need in Nebraska is a stronger philosophy and ethics department. But you could probably say that about several schools.

Here's the true idiocy, though: they suspended him. For a half. Which begs the question: has the system "played out to resolution"? If not, why the suspension, even a token one? Or, if the suspension, why not suspended UNTIL the case has played out?

In the current scenario, it truly looks "token", and will look worse if he's found guilty and dismissed from the team, i.e., "We weren't sure how bad it was, so we hedged our bets...for 30 minutes of clock time". When you read the timeline, it defies all logic that he's still playing. It was over the top when one of his attorneys stated that Washington "continues to be fully cooperative in the process."

JFC, he literally avoided and eluded and stonewalled for six or eight months, and the official statement from the school was contradictory, at best. WTF is "cooperative" about that?!

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I bet they aren't. They only care about "NCAA violations". They gave up any high ground they might've had on civil crimes after they let Pedo State slide on the original sanctions. Nothing's going to happen with this, anyway. Another kid who sent the video to his classmate got probation.

Sorry, disgusting as PSU situation was, there were no NCAA violations. That's what made it so cringe-y. That, and the schools calling for "death penalty" were Miami/FL and U$C.

PSU should NOT have faced NCAA sanctions. But, they SHOULD HAVE been kicked out of the B1G. Like Lance said in Pulp Fiction, "No trial, no jury, just straight to the f-ing chair!"

 

[Chickenlounge]

Frost should be suspended for this picture.

 

[4thngoal]

I bet they aren't. They only care about "NCAA violations". They gave up any high ground they might've had on civil crimes after they let Pedo State slide on the original sanctions.

Oh I think there is enough shady stuff, contradictory statements and the appearance of covering stuff up to warrant a closer look.
Any average person can see that and it's very reasonable.

 

[HuckFinn]

It seems to me that Alford got pretty much crucified for his lack of action on Pierce, who he stuck by for a time. Same with Frost? We shall see.

 

[MoseSchrute]

Sorry, disgusting as PSU situation was, there were no NCAA violations. That's what made it so cringe-y. That, and the schools calling for "death penalty" were Miami/FL and U$C.

PSU should NOT have faced NCAA sanctions. But, they SHOULD HAVE been kicked out of the B1G. Like Lance said in Pulp Fiction, "No trial, no jury, just straight to the f-ing chair!"

I think it could be argued that they had a competitive advantage because the school retained and covered for people they knew should have been facing criminal charges.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I think it could be argued that they had a competitive advantage because the school retained and covered for people they knew should have been facing criminal charges.

What competitive advantage? Is that listed in the NCAA rule book?

Again, I don't deny the "gross/sicko" factor. But making the leap to competitive advantage is a leap I wouldn't make. Any more than allowing academic fraud at UNC because "non-athletes" could take the same classes/curriculae.

But...the B1G should have kicked them out, and they should kick MSU out. Different standards than NCAA and, hopefully one would think, more stringent and more values-based versus mere "competition"-based.

 

[InGoodCo]

What competitive advantage? Is that listed in the NCAA rule book?

Again, I don't deny the "gross/sicko" factor. But making the leap to competitive advantage is a leap I wouldn't make. Any more than allowing academic fraud at UNC because "non-athletes" could take the same classes/curriculae.

But...the B1G should have kicked them out, and they should kick MSU out. Different standards than NCAA and, hopefully one would think, more stringent and more values-based versus mere "competition"-based.

I think that hiding that you have a monster who touches kids in your program for decades so it wouldn't hurt your football team instead of turning him in where it would have hurt your program from a legal stand point, a recruiting stand point and also possible NCAA sanctions IS indeed trying to give your school a competitive advantage. Period. Had they turned him in it would have hurt them competitively. IE - not turning him in is to get a competitive advantage. I've never really understood why that is so hard to understand and if I've got it wrong, feel free to educate me.

 

[kameltoez102]

I think that hiding that you have a monster who touches kids in your program for decades so it wouldn't hurt your football team instead of turning him in where it would have hurt your program from a legal stand point, a recruiting stand point and also possible NCAA sanctions IS indeed trying to give your school a competitive advantage. Period. Had they turned him in it would have hurt them competitively. IE - not turning him in is to get a competitive advantage. I've never really understood why that is so hard to understand and if I've got it wrong, feel free to educate me.

There is no way to know though how bad it would have hurt them its only speculation if they fired him. PSU was still a very attractive job when the first of these stories started coming out before it was even a court case. If they would have got rid of Sandusky from day 1 when the first complaint came in to Paterno many years ago who knows who would have been brought in.

My guess is they would have had the pick of the up and comers of the Defensive Coordinator profession. It may not have hurt them at all from a competitive standpoint in fact it may have helped them based on who they hired. I think we all know how this has turned out for them in the court public opinion outside of State College though.

 

[kicker22]

I think that hiding that you have a monster who touches kids in your program for decades so it wouldn't hurt your football team instead of turning him in where it would have hurt your program from a legal stand point, a recruiting stand point and also possible NCAA sanctions IS indeed trying to give your school a competitive advantage. Period. Had they turned him in it would have hurt them competitively. IE - not turning him in is to get a competitive advantage. I've never really understood why that is so hard to understand and if I've got it wrong, feel free to educate me.

Just my two cents, but I don't know if it would have hurt them competitively. There are a ton of sick people out there and I think society understands that. Had it been taken care of immediately the abuse wouldn't have extended to the point it did and I think the public would have viewed it differently. By no mean's am I saying they'd come out without a blemish in the public eye, but there's a huge difference in the university being a place where a monster associated with the program sexually assaulted children, as opposed to a university that stood by and covered up/did nothing while harboring a monster sexually assaulting children. In my opinion the university looking the other way and failing to do anything about it, while knowing it was going on, hurt PSU as much if not more in the court of public opinion than Sandusky's actions.

Not saying your wrong by any means just looking at it from a different perspective.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

I think that hiding that you have a monster who touches kids in your program for decades so it wouldn't hurt your football team instead of turning him in where it would have hurt your program from a legal stand point, a recruiting stand point and also possible NCAA sanctions IS indeed trying to give your school a competitive advantage. Period. Had they turned him in it would have hurt them competitively. IE - not turning him in is to get a competitive advantage. I've never really understood why that is so hard to understand and if I've got it wrong, feel free to educate me.

Had they turned him in, end of story. But you are making a leap. Look at Nebraska through the years. Playing felons, etc., Should the players have played? No, not IMO. But was it "illegal" or "against the rules". No.

You assume that the school knew enough to convict him, and/or that there was actual proof beyond "hearsay". Again, PRESUMPTION of innocence trumps "ASSUMPTION of guilt.

Scurveballs? Yes. NCAA violation(s)? Not necessarily. In fact, the NCAA penalized PSU before Sandusky ever stood trial.

Again, the B1G should have kicked them out. But making the reach to NCAA violations is just that, a reach.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

Frost should be suspended for this picture.

OMG. More like "terminated". Define that as you will...

 

[hwk23]

What competitive advantage? Is that listed in the NCAA rule book?

Again, I don't deny the "gross/sicko" factor. But making the leap to competitive advantage is a leap I wouldn't make. Any more than allowing academic fraud at UNC because "non-athletes" could take the same classes/curriculae.

But...the B1G should have kicked them out, and they should kick MSU out. Different standards than NCAA and, hopefully one would think, more stringent and more values-based versus mere "competition"-based.

This isn't directed at you necessarily but the Big Ten should kick Nebraska out. They are currently playing a player charged with a felony. That is a fact. It's an embarrassment to the whole conference, to say the least. I'm really surprised the Big Ten doesn't have a policy about not playing players charged with felonies. I'm guessing it's right on the verge of being a Title IX violation (sexual harassment, sexual intimidation, sexual assault etc). AND the victim is a minor.

EDIT: if in fact the Big Ten doesn't have a policy about not playing a student athlete charged with a felony. I guess it's possible they do, idk.

 

[hwk23]

I think that hiding that you have a monster who touches kids in your program for decades so it wouldn't hurt your football team instead of turning him in where it would have hurt your program from a legal stand point, a recruiting stand point and also possible NCAA sanctions IS indeed trying to give your school a competitive advantage. Period. Had they turned him in it would have hurt them competitively. IE - not turning him in is to get a competitive advantage. I've never really understood why that is so hard to understand and if I've got it wrong, feel free to educate me.

Let's face it, if Penn State didn't have an advantage to gain, Sandusky would have been in jail about 10 to 15 years sooner. It would have raised way too many questions about how long Paterno knew and that's why Paterno played his cards the way he did. Sandusky was like a boiling frog for Paterno and when it was too late he decided to brush it under the rug.

 

[Fryowa]

This isn't directed at you necessarily but the Big Ten should kick Nebraska out. They are currently playing a player charged with a felony. That is a fact. It's an embarrassment to the whole conference, to say the least. I'm really surprised the Big Ten doesn't have a policy about not playing players charged with felonies. I'm guessing it's right on the verge of being a Title IX violation (sexual harassment, sexual intimidation, sexual assault etc). AND the victim is a minor.

Don't disagree, but if the B1G didn't kick MSU or PSU out, no way in hell is Nebraska going to get the chopping block. I don't think they should get kicked out, I just think Washington should get expelled and Frost should get fired. Can you imagine the dumpster fire that program would be if Frost got canned? It would be 100 times worse than anything during Mike Riley's tenure.

 

[kicker22]

Had they turned him in, end of story. But you are making a leap. Look at Nebraska through the years. Playing felons, etc., Should the players have played? No, not IMO. But was it "illegal" or "against the rules". No.

You assume that the school knew enough to convict him, and/or that there was actual proof beyond "hearsay". Again, PRESUMPTION of innocence trumps "ASSUMPTION of guilt.

Scurveballs? Yes. NCAA violation(s)? Not necessarily. In fact, the NCAA penalized PSU before Sandusky ever stood trial.

Again, the B1G should have kicked them out. But making the reach to NCAA violations is just that, a reach.

With the number of mandatory reports that failed to do their diligence I have no problem with PSU being penalized before Sandusky was. Their obligation as mandatory reports wasn't to investigate or convict him, but rather follow the steps to see to it that it was reported and turned over to those responsible for investigating and handling the matter. Not essentially acknowledging what was going on and turning the other way.

 

[hawkeyebob62]

With the number of mandatory reports that failed to do their diligence I have no problem with PSU being penalized before Sandusky was. Their obligation as mandatory reports wasn't to investigate or convict him, but rather follow the steps to see to it that it was reported and turned over to those responsible for investigating and handling the matter. Not essentially acknowledging what was going on and turning the other way.

Again, what was the specific NCAA violation?