i don't think there's anythign wrong with that statement. i kinda agree with him, though now that it's come out that more members of the board of trustees than originally believed might have been in the know about sandusky, i'm not going to vehemently argue against punishment anymore.
i generally think the ncaa should worry about recruiting violations and academic scandals to keep athletes eligible, and leave the other stuff to the legal system. i don't think the penn st punishment is going to deter future pedophile coaches, nor do i think it'll deter future administrations faced with similar circumstances. i think the jail time and personal, financial, and professional ruin of the lives of admin most involved is the deterrent. if i'm the AD at msu and something like this came across my plate, the last thing i'd consider with whether to turn the info over to the authorities would be that if i didn't it could result in punishment for the football program. instead i'd be concerned about my personal future. i think generally the punishment has harmed innocents far more than those actually guilty of anything, especially when the guilty parties are going through their own personal punishments (whereas giving a kid a bag of money isn't against the law, the only punishment and deterrent is for the ncaa to act).
i do worry about the process the ncaa used to punish penn st though, and i fear the ncaa may use it as a precedent moving forward. i also worry about where the line will be drawn as to which criminal acts should result in school sanctions and which should get a pass. i think the ncaa acted due to public pressure and bent the rules (shocking) in order to do so.
