PonyFans.com

Meet the only player affected by SMU death penalty who went on to play at PSU
Giger Counters
August 1, 2012 - Cory Giger
Read comments | Post a comment Bookmark and Share
Matt McCartin has a unique place in the sports world. He was a member of the SMU football team when the program received the death penalty in 1987, then the offensive lineman transferred to Penn State and played for the Nittany Lions from 1988-90.

McCartin is the only football player who was tied to SMU's death penalty who then went on to see his alma mater get hit with severe sanctions that some people have suggested are as bad as the death penalty.

McCartin has done only one interview so far, with ESPNDallas, and has turned down interview requests from every other media outlet. I tried contacting him for an interview, but he did not return a message.

Many people are angry that other teams are recruiting PSU's players, who are eligible to transfer and play immediately. But when SMU received the death penalty, Penn State was one of the schools that visited the campus to recruit its players. Now, the situation was different in that case because SMU no longer had a football team for the players to compete on, while in PSU's case the Lions will still be competing during their sanctions.

Given his unique experiences, McCartin's perspective is worth telling. So here is the Q&A he did with ESPNDallas.

Q: What was your initial reaction to the penalties at Penn State?

A: For the most part it was sadness. … It's been a long time now, a long time since I experienced what I did at SMU, and so a lot of those emotions came back. And so when I saw the penalties, I think that NCAA came in and they wanted to make an example of Penn State. … [On wiping out the wins] They say they're Joe's victories. Joe might have been in the stadium, but it was a hundred kids each year that went out and practiced and won those games. The biggest issue I had is I think that the people they wanted to impose the penalties upon the most, one had passed away and the other one's in jail for life. … If I look at the program itself, I just felt some of it was a little punitive.

http://www.altoonamirror.com/page/blogs ... t-PSU.html

A LITTLE punitive? And the sun's a little warm. NCAA had no jurisdiction in this case and way overstepped its boundaries.

ponyboy wrote:A LITTLE punitive? And the sun's a little warm. NCAA had no jurisdiction in this case and way overstepped its boundaries.

NCAA should have hammered 'em.

I agree with the problem he has regarding totally innocent parties being made to pay for the behavior of a sick predator and a senile [deleted]. I felt the same way about SMU when we received the dp. The penalty should penalize the guilty parties not the innocent kids or alums. The SMU coaches and administrators who knew about the coverup lost their jobs, but the really big cigars who were pulling the strings went on with their careers, political and otherwise. I have no problem with PSU, its Paterno that I never liked, especially after his sanctimonious behavior regarding our situation in the 80s. But now he is dead and that sorry episode is over.

Bergermeister wrote:

ponyboy wrote:A LITTLE punitive? And the sun's a little warm. NCAA had no jurisdiction in this case and way overstepped its boundaries.

NCAA should have hammered 'em.

Why? Just because they can? Rule of law mean nothing to you?

ponyboy wrote:

Bergermeister wrote:

ponyboy wrote:A LITTLE punitive? And the sun's a little warm. NCAA had no jurisdiction in this case and way overstepped its boundaries.

NCAA should have hammered 'em.

Why? Just because they can? Rule of law mean nothing to you?

Nope.

Football program from the d coordinator to the headcoach to the AD all the way up to the university president ruined boys lives forever. Couldve and should've taken unprecedented action. Had the culture not existed that crowned paterno king, things would've been exposed years earlier, boys would have been spared, paterno and Sandusky likely put them and the harm to the program would've been felt earlier.

So just hit 'em with whatever you can, legal or not. Screw the whole criminal justice system. Screw the civil courts. That's the American way for sure. I call it abuse of power.

That's pretty much how it works. Been on the receiving end of it aplenty as well..yes I'm jaded but don't get me going on the civil court system.

ponyboy wrote:So just hit 'em with whatever you can, legal or not. Screw the whole criminal justice system. Screw the civil courts. That's the American way for sure. I call it abuse of power.

Reality is sometimes difficult to accept.

If the NCAA can decide they don't like your Indian mascot and ban you from post-season play because of it then they can hammer Penn State.

I didn't say they can't do what they did. I said they had no damn right to.

ponyboy wrote:I didn't say they can't do what they did. I said they had no damn right to.

Those two statements are logically incompatible.

By its very action, the NCAA was clearly was within its rights. You do not believe that the NCAA should pronounce judgments regarding what happened at Penn State, despite criminal happenings and the clear lack of institutional control. However, your opinion is meaningless. No matter how you may disagree with the outcome, history has already been decided. The NCAA does have such rights.

By that standard any action is right.

Also, let's not forget that the NCAA was given that right by the school to AVOID the due process system that would have most likely shut them down for 4 years. This was a plea deal, and a terrible one at that. Emmert sold out to protect TV rights; the rest of it is nonsense. And worst of all: no closure for the victims, and no real learning from the experience for Penn Staters. Just a waste of time.

RyanSMU98 wrote:Emmert sold out to protect TV rights; the rest of it is nonsense.

He mostly protected Penn State's opponents. Why should they lose a game (at worst) or TV appearance/revenue (at minimum) because of something their opponent did?

RyanSMU98 wrote:And worst of all: no closure for the victims, and no real learning from the experience for Penn Staters.

What possible penalty would have given closure to the victims? What penalty would have brought about real learning?