“Emmert’s ego wouldn’t allow it.” That was what University of Oklahoma’s Professor Gerald Gurney said in a recent interview when asked about the possibility of the NCAA modifying Penn State’s punishment.
How many of you don’t believe that Emmert’s ego is the most significant monkey wrench in the works? I don’t see many hands out there, Magic Mirror.
In fact, there is little hope of any abatement at all, even though it appears that the NCAA is “damaged goods” because of all the negative publicity of late. The NCAA has been under more fire recently than at any other time anyone can recall. Why not strike while the iron is hot?
Because they’re holding all the cards, that’s why, consequently furthering the notion that this post is a veritable bastion of mixed metaphors.
A gigantic cascade of improbable events would have to occur before any hope were to exist for reduction of the Penn State penalties, among them Louis Freeh admitting that his report was complete and utter bullshit for which he was paid under the proverbial table by the NCAA; the Tickle Monster making a complete, abject confession, explaining in the process the disappearance of former Centre County D.A. Ray Gricar, while exonerating all alleged participants in the cover-up; Curley, Schultz, and Spanier being acquitted; and, last but not least, Mike McQueary discrediting himself and his testimony by sitting on top of a flagpole for a few straight days doing his best Jonathan Winters impression. However, even if all that happened, if Emmert were still standing, his ego wouldn’t allow it.
But but but… I’m a pessimist, I know. I believe in Penn State exceptionalism — that our shit doesn’t stink while everyone else’s does, and they just don’t understand that WE ARE… PENN STATE!!! Yeah, well, that’s no reason to hold unrealistic expectations, especially because aside from Penn State students, alumni, and fans, the whole, nasty mess at Penn State is viewed with a rather jaundiced eye. We’re just lucky that the furor has died down from active hatred to mere dispassionate apathy; however, let the debate come to the fore again and those negative sentiments will be restimulated.
In any case, there are lots of whys and why nots associated with the possibility of the NCAA reducing Penn State’s sanctions, which I believe is justified — and even justifiable, in theory — but I don’t believe there’s a snowball’s chance in hell of it happening in practice as long as Emmert is running the show. I am really not seeing any signs of the disentrenchment that some of you have noted, leading me to believe that you’re engaging in pie-in-the-sky optimistic wishful thinking, better known as mental masturbation. (And the metaphors spew on, but I digress.)
To further bring balance to the metaphorical equation, please take a gander at Charles Thompson’s position piece, “Why the NCAA isn’t likely to reduce Penn State’s penalties,” in this morning’s Patriot-News, sometimes known as PennLive.com. Thompson enumerates five reasons to support his conjecture, to wit:
- Self-preservation
- Wary of a new precedent
- Mark Emmert’s ego
- It could be dismissed
- ‘A cat with nine lives’
All except Number Three are pretty arcane, so you’ll have to read Thompson’s piece to get his perspective on the other bullets. Meanwhile, I picked the easiest of the five to hang my own birdbrain hat on, metaphorically speaking.
The original title of Thompson’s piece was “Could a chastened NCAA relent?”
Not, in this turkey’s opinion, at least not as long as Emmert is running the NCAA show.
