Ok, it is not an NCAA matter per-se, but why does accreditation never come up in these discussions? Especially with the Penn State situation in which one of the big allegations was the improper "governance" of the institution. That is one of the main standards to be evaluated by accreditation reviews. If there never was a notation about improper governance at Penn State, then what good is accreditation? Everyone in the country knew that Joe Paterno had too much power within the institution. Did no one ever make note of this in the formal review process for accreditation?