OT: D1

[ctrabs74]

Yep. Other schools granted exceptions because of approval from associated tribes: Catawba, Central Michigan, and Utah. There are a dozen other schools allowed, such as East Stroudsburg, because they dropped imagery because they could change the depiction. Most like ESU use Warriors.

North Dakota has a strong relationship with one of two major Sioux tribes but the other mounted enough pressure to force a change. Miami University in Ohio has a strong relationship with the Miami tribe in Oklahoma and that tribe successfully convinced the school to drop its old Redskins nickname. Usually the imagery was the problem - especially stereotyped or generic caricatures that aren't specific to who or where. The worst was clearly the Redmen (UMass), Redskins (Miami U), and Savages (Eastern Washington). FWIW, I live adjacent to a private country club whose logo is the head of the specific historical native chief they're named for - but the logo is actually a stereotypical Sioux chief, not a Seneca chief.

I never realized UMass Amherst weren't always known as the Minutemen. FWIW, UMass Lowell (where Mercyhurst men's basketball coach Gary Manchel had coached for nine years back in the day before eventually taking his talents to Erie) were known as the "Chiefs" back from their days when they were the University of Lowell until 1994, when they rebranded as the Riverhawks. The hockey program's mascot was literally a skating puck with the ULowell Indian head logo known as "Charlie Chief", I don't recall there being an "official" mascot for the other sports (for obvious reasons).

[IUP24]

They certainly haven't suffered the consequences Penn State did. After getting pushback about the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA appears to have just thrown up its hands and said, "Do what you will" to member schools. North Carolina got no penalty for blatant academic cheating. Their defense in a nutshell was that other students cheated as well as the athletes, so why should the athletes be penalized?

Sexual crimes against children are always going to be considered more heinous than those against adults, but it should be pointed out that some of Nassar's victims were young teenage girls who were barely more than children. I don't know how Michigan State got away with that without some sort of penalty to their sports program.

My issue with the NCAA pertaining to this topic is largely who they choose to levy penalties to, and the "how" with regards to the disparity in how they levy them. There were felonies occurring for decades within the Penn State football building which were known by numerous powerful people. They were initially hit with some hard penalties, but then got let off with good behavior. If that same exact situation happened at a smaller university, not at a football factory, or at a place that was not necessarily a football "brand" who the NCAA and media didn't need, would they have gotten a reprieve? I highly doubt it. Think about that entire situation that happened at Penn State. If that happened at Akron or Ball State, does anyone think that there would have been public outcry about the NCAA "punishing the innocent football players?" Highly doubt it. The NCAA would have wiped that program off the face of the earth and would never have even blinked about it.

I saw someone mention the North Carolina basketball program. That's case and point backing what I'm saying. The NCAA and their media partners can't afford to have those types of brands go into the toilet in direct relation to a penalty they set forth. They NEED them operating at a high level, because UNC, Kentucky, Duke, UCLA, Michigan State, etc., operating at a high level is GREAT for business. And that's what the NCAA (and all of these programs) care about.

It seems like the venues for the NCAA tournament get bigger and bigger earlier in the tournament each year. The NCAA can't afford to have those types of schools banned from the tournament due to a sanction. Or they can't have a major scholarship loss impact their ability to field a team capable of making the dance, or going on a run. Because when the show moves to a football stadium in the Sweet 16, the NCAA is relying on the fans of those types of programs to buy the tickets and turn on the television. So if you consider the UNC basketball academic scandal, does the NCAA completely ignore that and let it slide if it happens at Robert Morris? No chance.

The same can be said for the NIL situation too. Does anyone know how many NIL violations have been formally processed and punishments handed out? One. That's it. For a women's basketball team. You read that correctly. The NCAA found that the Cavinder twins (Haley and Hannah) were illegally recruited when they were transferring to Miami from Fresno State. The head coach organized a meeting for the twins and Miami booster John Ruiz to go over NIL opportunities while they were in the transfer portal, and when they met, Ruiz bought the girls dinner. That's the sport and situation that the NCAA chose to hang their hat on pertaining to NIL. You all see what's going on in the NIL world. You think that's the only direct "violation" the NCAA knows about? For goodness sakes, Jordan Addison's talents were bought by Lincoln Reily off the Pitt roster in April 2022, but a coach organizing a meeting for two athletes who are actively in the transfer portal is what gets flagged by the NCAA.

It's evident what the NCAA does pertaining to non-equitable penalties and sanctions. I'm in favor of strict sanctions to eliminate some of the problem children. But levy those out consistently.

[IUP24]

They certainly haven't suffered the consequences Penn State did. After getting pushback about the Penn State sanctions, the NCAA appears to have just thrown up its hands and said, "Do what you will" to member schools. North Carolina got no penalty for blatant academic cheating. Their defense in a nutshell was that other students cheated as well as the athletes, so why should the athletes be penalized?

Sexual crimes against children are always going to be considered more heinous than those against adults, but it should be pointed out that some of Nassar's victims were young teenage girls who were barely more than children. I don't know how Michigan State got away with that without some sort of penalty to their sports program.

I think part of the issue is that, while he was employed by Michigan State and certainly did abuse some of their athletes, much of the Larry Nassar story had absolutely nothing to do with the NCAA. It was 80% or more USA Gymnastics.

The more you read about that situation, the worse it looks for all of the adults involved - parents of the female athletes included. There were stories for years passed down by the girls to the next group about "weird" things happening at the Karolyi Ranch during USA gymnastics camps. Girls talked to each other about the "treatments" they were receiving from Nassar. It wasn't even necessarily a secret about what was going on in those circles. Many of those girls' parents even knew, which to me, is just plain reprehensible. When those girls read their victim statements at the trial, I lost count of the number of times they spoke about telling their parents about what was going on. That was just unfathomable to me. So many are to blame in that situation. Even if the individual didn't come out and directly say it, some parent had to have read between the lines and known.

But no parent wanted to be the whistleblower, because no parent wanted to cost their child a potential shot at the Olympics. It wasn't until Maggie Nichols said what was going on to her parents pretty directly that they went to the police. There were many moving parts to that Michigan State story. The documentary Athlete A on Netflix sheds some pretty good light on the story. It pretty much tells Maggie Nichols' story and explains how many people knew about that situation, but just kind of never did anything about it. Sad all the way around.

[EyeoftheHawk]

But no parent wanted to be the whistleblower, because no parent wanted to cost their child a potential shot at the Olympics…

Sad all the way around.

The Nassar situation aside, parents are the root of a lot of delusional behaviors when it comes to youth sports and can be ruthless when it comes to Johnny or Jennie making it to the “big time.” Could you even imagine turning a blind eye to your child being abused because you worried saying something would hurt his or her chances to make it? It’s unfathomable to me, but I know it happens. I see it in baseball all the time. I had one parent of a travel ball player tell me, “This is a big tournament and we’re just hoping Johnnie gets noticed.” This is a kid that hadn’t even made the varsity high school team yet and the focus is getting noticed? That’s one of many similar examples that I could go on and on about, and that’s just baseball.

I don’t mean to take the conversation off track but the false god of whatever “making it” is has gotten out of control. It’s fueled by travel and “elite” leagues that prey on a kid’s (and parents’) desperation to get a scholarship, make headlines, etc. I’ve seen kids being discouraged by coaches from playing multiple sports. Parents spend money they don’t have and an inordinate amount of time chasing something that either isn’t truly attainable or what it’s cracked up to be. It’s all very sad when you think about it.

[IUP24]

The Nassar situation aside, parents are the root of a lot of delusional behaviors when it comes to youth sports and can be ruthless when it comes to Johnny or Jennie making it to the “big time.” Could you even imagine turning a blind eye to your child being abused because you worried saying something would hurt his or her chances to make it? It’s unfathomable to me, but I know it happens. I see it in baseball all the time. I had one parent of a travel ball player tell me, “This is a big tournament and we’re just hoping Johnnie gets noticed.” This is a kid that hadn’t even made the varsity high school team yet and the focus is getting noticed? That’s one of many similar examples that I could go on and on about, and that’s just baseball.

I don’t mean to take the conversation off track but the false god of whatever “making it” is has gotten out of control. It’s fueled by travel and “elite” leagues that prey on a kid’s (and parents’) desperation to get a scholarship, make headlines, etc. I’ve seen kids being discouraged by coaches from playing multiple sports. Parents spend money they don’t have and an inordinate amount of time chasing something that either isn’t truly attainable or what it’s cracked up to be. It’s all very sad when you think about it.

I actually wonder what this looks like 20 or so years from now. Think about what this all is going to be like when the high school teenagers now are in their late 30s and starting to have kids. Imagine those individuals as "sports parents." Yikes...

[iupgroundhog]

My issue with the NCAA pertaining to this topic is largely who they choose to levy penalties to, and the "how" with regards to the disparity in how they levy them. There were felonies occurring for decades within the Penn State football building which were known by numerous powerful people. They were initially hit with some hard penalties, but then got let off with good behavior. If that same exact situation happened at a smaller university, not at a football factory, or at a place that was not necessarily a football "brand" who the NCAA and media didn't need, would they have gotten a reprieve? I highly doubt it. Think about that entire situation that happened at Penn State. If that happened at Akron or Ball State, does anyone think that there would have been public outcry about the NCAA "punishing the innocent football players?" Highly doubt it. The NCAA would have wiped that program off the face of the earth and would never have even blinked about it.

I think that is a mischaracterization. With regard to Penn State, first of all, the sanctions were unprecedented so the NCAA wasn't thinking of $$$ or the prominence of the program to start with.

Only some scholarship allocations were restored. Bowl eligibility and championship eligibility were not restored. The $60 million fine was already a done deal.

The easing of some scholarship restrictions was officially based on the actions taken by Penn State to create a system of checks and balances to avoid a reoccurrence of something like what happened. The system created was to serve as a model for other institutions, both inside and outside of college athletics. The committee that rendered the decision to restore some scholarships was headed by George Mitchell, appointed from outside of the NCAA, a former longtime U.S. Senator, U.S. attorney, who negotiated the peace deal in Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration, who led the investigation into steroid use in MLB, again as an outside investigator. It would be unanimously held that George Mitchell was not going to be influenced by a rabid fanbase, rich donors, or other convenient considerations. He put his stamp on the decision and it was unbiased. Plus, the reprieves weren't all that much considering the amount of damage that was done to the "brand."

Furthermore, there were other considerations. It wasn't just "punishing the innocent football players", although it was that. The bowl sanctions and the other sanctions, creating a less competitive product on the field, reached far and wide as far as hurting innocent people, businesses, the university as a whole, and the Borough of State College. Nevertheless, it can't be overlooked that the partial scholarship limit easing was ultimately the result of the actions taken by Penn State University in the aftermath.

[IUP24]

I think that is a mischaracterization. With regard to Penn State, first of all, the sanctions were unprecedented so the NCAA wasn't thinking of $$$ or the prominence of the program to start with.

Only some scholarship allocations were restored. Bowl eligibility and championship eligibility were not restored. The $60 million fine was already a done deal.

The easing of some scholarship restrictions was officially based on the actions taken by Penn State to create a system of checks and balances to avoid a reoccurrence of something like what happened. The system created was to serve as a model for other institutions, both inside and outside of college athletics. The committee that rendered the decision to restore some scholarships was headed by George Mitchell, appointed from outside of the NCAA, a former longtime U.S. Senator, U.S. attorney, who negotiated the peace deal in Northern Ireland during the Clinton Administration, who led the investigation into steroid use in MLB, again as an outside investigator. It would be unanimously held that George Mitchell was not going to be influenced by a rabid fanbase, rich donors, or other convenient considerations. He put his stamp on the decision and it was unbiased. Plus, the reprieves weren't all that much considering the amount of damage that was done to the "brand."

Furthermore, there were other considerations. It wasn't just "punishing the innocent football players", although it was that. The bowl sanctions and the other sanctions, creating a less competitive product on the field, reached far and wide as far as hurting innocent people, businesses, the university as a whole, and the Borough of State College. Nevertheless, it can't be overlooked that the partial scholarship limit easing was ultimately the result of the actions taken by Penn State University in the aftermath.

I've mischaracterized nothing. You can frame it any way you want to frame it. If that happened at a school like Akron or Ball State, the NCAA would have obliterated that program off the map. My comment/opinion is rooted in the idea that the NCAA is not consistent in terms of how they choose to levy punishment, allowing large brands or major sports to typically skate by.

And to be clear, the only brand damage that hit Penn State was outside of the university, alumni base, and fans. Penn State still generates 100,000+ for every home game. They collect a top 5 of top 10 recruiting class nearly every year for football. They are still one of the richest athletic departments in the country. They still have one of the largest student bodies in the country. If the outside perception of Penn State changed because of that situation, I'd say you are right. But if you think that it did anything to actually impact them financially or from a performance standpoint after the sanctions were all completed, you're dead wrong.

SMU was given the death penalty for doing what's now considered legal. They weren't let off the hook. They were forced to be the black sheep and stink in perpetuity for decades. They didn't play football for 2 full years. Homecoming was a soccer game. The economic impact was felt there too. I understand that football is the economy in many of these towns. Perhaps the programs, athletic departments, and institutions should take better account for how many innocent individuals are impacted by their decisions.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

Just remember Pitt has a legit history of winning games it shouldn't - especially after they've been counted out.

That said, their QB may not start at good D2 programs right now.

[iupgroundhog]

I've mischaracterized nothing. You can frame it any way you want to frame it. If that happened at a school like Akron or Ball State, the NCAA would have obliterated that program off the map. My comment/opinion is rooted in the idea that the NCAA is not consistent in terms of how they choose to levy punishment, allowing large brands or major sports to typically skate by.

And to be clear, the only brand damage that hit Penn State was outside of the university, alumni base, and fans. Penn State still generates 100,000+ for every home game. They collect a top 5 of top 10 recruiting class nearly every year for football. They are still one of the richest athletic departments in the country. They still have one of the largest student bodies in the country. If the outside perception of Penn State changed because of that situation, I'd say you are right. But if you think that it did anything to actually impact them financially or from a performance standpoint after the sanctions were all completed, you're dead wrong.

SMU was given the death penalty for doing what's now considered legal. They weren't let off the hook. They were forced to be the black sheep and stink in perpetuity for decades. They didn't play football for 2 full years. Homecoming was a soccer game. The economic impact was felt there too. I understand that football is the economy in many of these towns. Perhaps the programs, athletic departments, and institutions should take better account for how many innocent individuals are impacted by their decisions.

That's all just conjecture. And you are saying that the Penn State brand was not damaged by the scandal? Oh, ok.

[IUPbigINDIANS]

I've mischaracterized nothing. You can frame it any way you want to frame it. If that happened at a school like Akron or Ball State, the NCAA would have obliterated that program off the map. My comment/opinion is rooted in the idea that the NCAA is not consistent in terms of how they choose to levy punishment, allowing large brands or major sports to typically skate by.

And to be clear, the only brand damage that hit Penn State was outside of the university, alumni base, and fans. Penn State still generates 100,000+ for every home game. They collect a top 5 of top 10 recruiting class nearly every year for football. They are still one of the richest athletic departments in the country. They still have one of the largest student bodies in the country. If the outside perception of Penn State changed because of that situation, I'd say you are right. But if you think that it did anything to actually impact them financially or from a performance standpoint after the sanctions were all completed, you're dead wrong.

SMU was given the death penalty for doing what's now considered legal. They weren't let off the hook. They were forced to be the black sheep and stink in perpetuity for decades. They didn't play football for 2 full years. Homecoming was a soccer game. The economic impact was felt there too. I understand that football is the economy in many of these towns. Perhaps the programs, athletic departments, and institutions should take better account for how many innocent individuals are impacted by their decisions.

Forgotten all these years later is what is at the core of it - the victims.

It has always been my belief PSU got off very easy. Joe died shortly after getting fired. He was likely going to prison had he lived.

That travesty goes deep. Don't forget old Ray Gricar just vanished off the face of the Earth.

[IUP24]

Forgotten all these years later is what is at the core of it - the victims.

It has always been my belief PSU got off very easy. Joe died shortly after getting fired. He was likely going to prison had he lived.

That travesty goes deep. Don't forget old Ray Gricar just vanished off the face of the Earth.

Thank you. It’s alarming, and sad, that people just kind of forget that. For too many it was, and still is, about football.

[iupgroundhog]

I can't argue with what you guys believe.

[iupgroundhog]

Thank you. It’s alarming, and sad, that people just kind of forget that. For too many it was, and still is, about football.

What makes you think that people forget about the victims?

[IUPNation]

Thank you. It’s alarming, and sad, that people just kind of forget that. For too many it was, and still is, about football.

The fact that the biggest goal of those OUTRAGED about the scandal was to take down the program. Thry forgot about the victims at that moment.

Had the focus just been on the criminal aspect of it and let that he the focus the victims would be getting their Justice. The only Justice was making those pay who did and enabled the crimes to happen.

I doubt one victim felt better that scholarships were reduced and bowls opportunities taken away.

The NCAA had no jurisdiction in my view. This was a criminal case for the Courts of the Commonwealth. I’m glad they saw the process through. It was a despicable crime.

The NCAA is basically useless.

[IUP24]

That's all just conjecture. And you are saying that the Penn State brand was not damaged by the scandal? Oh, ok.

You must’ve missed where I said that they pull in 100,000+ every Saturday, have one of the richest athletic departments in the country, one of the biggest endowments, one of the largest student bodies, and one of the largest alumni bases.

Did that hurt their brand? Yeah. I acknowledged that it did for those outside the university community. Did one or two people choose not to go there because of it? Probably. But are they doing just fine now? Yes.

At the root of this, young children were sexually assaulted for years and it was covered up because of individuals within the university. My overall point was that is astronomically worse than anything that SMU did and SMU’s program got decimated for decades.