To benefit from a weakened PSU. But yeah, there was no conflict there in rushing to sanction PSU.
Anti-trust need not apply to ivory tower monopolies.
Anti-trust need not apply to ivory tower monopolies.
It's funny how MSU's prez and school continue
- Thread starter PSU_sues_ncaa_big10
- Start date
I think the OP is referring to Lou Anna Simon, MSU President who was part of the NCAA executive committee that agreed to go forward with the Sandusky related sanctions despite not even reading the Freeh report. Why today .... seems a bit out of place but I guess its related to the manhandling we received on Saturday.
Honestly, the OP makes a lot of sense. If anyone thinks any member of that conference was not happy to see the sanctions against Penn State, they are delusional. They loved it.
Yes they did, for 2 reasons. It limited our ability to compete and it "put us in our place". I think the OSUs and Michigans were sick of the elevation of Joe Paterno to legendary status and were gleeful at the destruction of his name and legacy by our BOT.
I used to like MSU before I found out their president was one of the ones who wanted to hammer Penn State with sanctions. I now put them in the same category as Delaney, OSU and UM. Both OSU and UM did not want us in the B10 to begin with IIRC. Unfortunately when you are forced upon those who did not want you, it is going to be tough going for a long, long time as witnessed by Penn State's treatment in the B10 over the years including the piling on of the sanctions and nearly being kicked out with regard to the JS (not Penn State) non-football related crimes.
While I'm no fan of MSU or necessarily the big ten, I believe Lubrano did post just a few weeks ago that the Michigan State administration was ready to voice their support for PSU when the crap hit the fan until the PSU BOT decided to put the figurative gun to the university's head and blow out it's brains.
