Two football teams from the SEC had appeals to lift bowl bans mandated by the NCAA Infractions Committee denied this week.
Why does this bother us here at Penn State, snuggled up in a tight little corner of the Northeast, surrounded by the natural barriers of mountains and the ever-present, Joe-can-do-no-wrong blanket of warm fuzziness?
Because, if all the hype is verified, and the Nittany Lions do indeed have what it takes to run the table and wind up in a major bowl game, we'd like to believe, as much as we can, that it will have a level playing field on which to run said table. And the pressures and intentions, both good and bad, exist at all big-time football programs, and Penn State would be naïve to say the least to think it is exempt.
But let's get back to the SEC. Since 1987, eight of the conference's 12 football teams have been found guilty of major rules violations and have received various degrees of punishment.
The most notable case was that of the 1993 Auburn Tigers, who went on probation for the sixth time, receiving a two-year postseason ban. Auburn went 21-1-1 during those two seasons, including a perfect 11-0 in 1993, but spent both bowl weeks at home.
This week's appeals involved Alabama and Kentucky. The Crimson Tide was placed on five years probation this February after being cited for illegal recruiting practices by boosters (the most common perennial boo-boo of the seven other teams).
Alabama was also banned from participating in a bowl game for two years and forced to cut 21 scholarships over three years.
The Wildcats were put on probation in January for - you guessed it - recruiting violations. Kentucky's bowl ban was only one year, which at the time didn't seem like much considering the team was coming off of back-to-back 2-9 seasons. However, the 'Cats are 3-0 thus far.
But this week was important because, instead of essentially reducing the punishments to slaps on the wrist, the appeals committee sent a message to Alabama and Kentucky and the rest of the collegiate sports world: If you get caught with your fingers in the cookie jar, you have to go sit in the corner. For the rest of the night.
For too long, the infractions committee laid down the law, then could only watch as the appeals committee picked it back up and set it aside.
Alabama's punishment, for example, was severe. But so too was the violation.
The NCAA uncovered that a 'Bama booster gave the coach of a recruit $115,000 to get the kid to sign.
The Kentucky case determined that more than $7,000 was spent, primarily by since-fired football operations director Claude Bassett, for impermissible recruiting inducements and monetary gifts to prospects and their coaches.
"I think those two cases were some of the most serious in recent years," said Tom Yeager, chairman of the infractions committee, "and I think that there was compelling evidence in both cases."
The challenge that Yeager and the rest of the infractions committee often face is that the cases can take different shape when it comes time to appeal.
"Between two commitees sometimes the issues change," Yeager said. "The arguments that were made to the appeals committee were different to what the issues were at the infractions case ... that's the nature of the appellate process."
But this week, the appeals committee went right along, and made what Yeager calls an important statement about NCAA violations as a whole.
"That's something any group would like, to have their work validated by a completely independent group," Yeager said.
So take heed, all ye shady boosters, assistants and other evil-doers. The NCAA is not putting up with your antics.
Lots of ardent Penn State supporters have huge hearts, just like their counterparts in Tuscaloosa and Lexington, and, like those counterparts, huge wallets. Let's hope, especially if the Lions continue to win, that they don't also have walnut-sized brains.
