Good show

Well I think that was a hell of a show today. If you didn't listen in, shame on you. We really had some good debate going. The main point of contention was the current NCAA system for doling out sanctions on programs for recruiting violations and the like.
It all began talking about how the NCAA office goofed and let the case against former Ohio St. men's coach Jim O'brien go by failing to file some papers before a deadline. In case you don't know, O'brien admitted to giving a player $6,000 of his own money to play.
Josh contended that penalties leveed for such violations should remain, as it is now, against the school at which the violations occured (in this case, Oh. St.) with no individual punishment (unless doled out by the school) against the coach. I don't know exactly what the penalty against OSU would have been exactly). Josh's main point is that putting the punishment on the school rather than the individual coach makes sense because the coach is merely a representative of the school, beacuse the coach is not always responsible for the violation and because that way schools will be deterred from hiring a coach who might be known for potentially committing such a violation.
I agree with him mostly, but I still think there is room for some individual punishment. I agree that as a representative of the school, the coach's problems are the school's problems. They've put trust in him and must pay the price if he screws up. I also agree that coach's definitiely are not always responsible for violations, as they often come from other personbel, especially boosters. Well, I say, either there needs to be more policing of booster activites by the NCAA or the school or the athletic dept (including the coach). But that's too big a mess to clean up probably. I think more likely, allegations of violations against schools should be investigated individually, and punishment should be dually leveed against the school and the individual who committed the act. In this case, that means O'brien and solely O'brien. Why, then, should Oh. St. players and coaches several years down the line potentially be punished for the actions of a man who they had nothing to do with. And, even bigger, why should that man be able to go freely to any other school and start with a clean record?
To speak to Josh's third point, I think it would be a bigger deterrent for schools hiring shady coaches if that potential coach had a record that trails him. If the NCAA says any school that guy goes to for the next X years will lose 2 scholarships a season, I think that would be a better deterrent than the way it is now. Josh counters that it isn't fair to the new school who had nothing to do with the violations, but I think if they are willing to hire a guy who has a record of violations in the past, they need to live with the consequences. After all, if the guy continues the way he has been, it will probably only be a few seasons before more allegations occur and he moves on to the next place, leaving behind more penalties against the school.
Well, I hope that all made sense, and I hope I don't sound like I'm bashing Josh. I'm not. I just wanted to let you all in on a great debate we had today.
Anyway, check out the show next Saturday, as it will be the last one for the year. And check out the last mock draft of the year at the J-Loe Down.
I'm out.