Penn State Sanctions: Poll

Penn State's Punishment

  • Total voters
    142
Donate To GopherHole
Gopher07

Gopher07

Captain of Awesome
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
9,008
Reaction score
15
Points
38
Do you think the punishment is too harsh, about right, too lenient, or that the NCAA shouldn't have punished in the first place?
 

The appropriate penalty would've been the death penalty for a year or two. But, that said, it's not just a slap on the wrist, and it is a serious penalty.

So my vote is for almost "about right", a bit on the too lenient side.

That said, I'd like to strongly disagree with those people who are saying - here and elsewhere - that this is worse than the death penalty or that it'll take PSU longer to recover from it.

GoAUpher had a nice rundown on another thread of why this isn't just a slap on the wrist and why it's quite a bit more severe than what USC got, but let's run down what the death penalty would mean - even assuming the "lightest" DP of only 1 year and it being known right away it would be exactly only 1 year:
1. You'd lose just about all 85 of your current players. You might get a group of 20-30 guys who would stick around, but these are probably going to be less talented freshman (maybe sophs) who don't have other good options.
2. Your program in 2013 would basically be the handful of guys who stuck around plus 25 incoming true freshmen. You'd have maybe 40-50 or so guys on scholarship (you could put more walk-ons on schollie, but these guys are walk-on level talent).
3. The revenue hit would be huge - and it'd be all up front. PSU would give up its football revenue - I don't have the number in front of me but it's probably more than the $60M they got fined, plus it's all up front in 2012. They'd have to do some serious work (internal school loans or something) to make sure the AD's checks didn't bounce.

The death penalty would've gutted the football program. This is a serious gash, but it doesn't completely destroy it (unless a huge chunk of the current players leave, which I don't expect, but I could be wrong.)

This will be a serious penalty for PSU to come back from, but let's not forget the advantages they still will have: a 100,000 seat stadium, tons of fans and money, etc., etc. If they can survive the 1-2 years of recruiting classes looking at no or very limited bowl opportunities and post even decent (~.500) records, the 3rd year and 4th years of recruiting could pick up to where it was before. They'll be thinner than they would've been, but I doubt they'll be terrible and I assume they'll come back to the middle of the pack by 2016 or 2017 or so.

All my assumptions change though if a large number of current players leave. If they do, and PSU goes 0-fer for the next 3 or 4 years, and fans stay away, they could be bad for a lot longer. Time will tell.
 

About right, but it's a tad more harsh than I thought it would be. It became increasingly obvious that the NCAA was going to do something. I don't know if it's a precedent, because I think Rick Neuheisel was reprimanded for having a betting pool on the NCAA hoops bracket (which doesn't relate to the football program), although I could be mistaken on that. I just think this is going to ramp up the NCAA's monitoring of behavioral aspects of the personal lives of athletes and coaches and I don't know if that is the mission of the organization.
 

For those of you saying they should have gotten the death penalty: I would bet that if you gave Penn State the option, they would pick a 1 year shutdown over what they got. This was done because the death penalty would cause too much colateral damage. Some will not be satisfied with any punishment.
 

As Tim Brando said on his show, in thirty plus years on the National level he has covered.The only day that comes close this is the day that the news conference was held in Dallas, Texas on the campus of Southern Methodist Univesity and the Death Penalty came down. A lot of his friends and collegues have tweeted that while the death penalty did not come, perhaps they now have now induced a coma for Penn State.
 


Golden Elephant said:
The appropriate penalty would've been the death penalty for a year or two. But, that said, it's not just a slap on the wrist, and it is a serious penalty.

So my vote is for almost "about right", a bit on the too lenient side.

That said, I'd like to strongly disagree with those people who are saying - here and elsewhere - that this is worse than the death penalty or that it'll take PSU longer to recover from it.

GoAUpher had a nice rundown on another thread of why this isn't just a slap on the wrist and why it's quite a bit more severe than what USC got, but let's run down what the death penalty would mean - even assuming the "lightest" DP of only 1 year and it being known right away it would be exactly only 1 year:
1. You'd lose just about all 85 of your current players. You might get a group of 20-30 guys who would stick around, but these are probably going to be less talented freshman (maybe sophs) who don't have other good options.
2. Your program in 2013 would basically be the handful of guys who stuck around plus 25 incoming true freshmen. You'd have maybe 40-50 or so guys on scholarship (you could put more walk-ons on schollie, but these guys are walk-on level talent).
3. The revenue hit would be huge - and it'd be all up front. PSU would give up its football revenue - I don't have the number in front of me but it's probably more than the $60M they got fined, plus it's all up front in 2012. They'd have to do some serious work (internal school loans or something) to make sure the AD's checks didn't bounce.

The death penalty would've gutted the football program. This is a serious gash, but it doesn't completely destroy it (unless a huge chunk of the current players leave, which I don't expect, but I could be wrong.)

This will be a serious penalty for PSU to come back from, but let's not forget the advantages they still will have: a 100,000 seat stadium, tons of fans and money, etc., etc. If they can survive the 1-2 years of recruiting classes looking at no or very limited bowl opportunities and post even decent (~.500) records, the 3rd year and 4th years of recruiting could pick up to where it was before. They'll be thinner than they would've been, but I doubt they'll be terrible and I assume they'll come back to the middle of the pack by 2016 or 2017 or so.

All my assumptions change though if a large number of current players leave. If they do, and PSU goes 0-fer for the next 3 or 4 years, and fans stay away, they could be bad for a lot longer. Time will tell.
Click to expand...

Yep. That's about right.
 

50PoundHead said:
About right, but it's a tad more harsh than I thought it would be. It became increasingly obvious that the NCAA was going to do something. I don't know if it's a precedent, because I think Rick Neuheisel was reprimanded for having a betting pool on the NCAA hoops bracket (which doesn't relate to the football program), although I could be mistaken on that. I just think this is going to ramp up the NCAA's monitoring of behavioral aspects of the personal lives of athletes and coaches and I don't know if that is the mission of the organization.
Click to expand...

Nope. That would be an invasion of privacy.
 

But there is a stake in the ground now by which future investigations can be conducted and penalties assessed. What happened at Penn State was horrid beyond words and involved an institutional cover-up and while one can quibble about the level of punishment, the NCAA did find it in their purview to act. But the line between what is and what isn't related to a particular sports program has been undeniably blurred here. My guess is, given the NCAA's action, there will be an increasing number of whisper campaigns (let's remember how often assistant coaches move around) and as a result, pressure on the NCAA to investigate more programs for transgressions committed by coaches and athletes that are not central to their status as coaches and athletes.
 

I voted too lenient because the ncaa should've overturned that pass interference call (2006?) at the dome when we got hosed.
 




50PoundHead said:
But there is a stake in the ground now by which future investigations can be conducted and penalties assessed. What happened at Penn State was horrid beyond words and involved an institutional cover-up and while one can quibble about the level of punishment, the NCAA did find it in their purview to act. But the line between what is and what isn't related to a particular sports program has been undeniably blurred here. My guess is, given the NCAA's action, there will be an increasing number of whisper campaigns (let's remember how often assistant coaches move around) and as a result, pressure on the NCAA to investigate more programs for transgressions committed by coaches and athletes that are not central to their status as coaches and athletes.
Click to expand...


The difference between your first statement and the above statement is your suggestion of witness testimony. The NCAA will not investigate athletes randomly. They will not snoop into their business without probable cause. The stake in the ground was the substantial probable cause at PSU. The difference in the NCAA approach is really quite simple. They are more willing to accept outside investigation material in their decision when the accused University has consented to the results of the investigation. PSU set the standard with accepting the results of the investigation with a Consent Decree. So, if a University does not accept the findings, it appears they have basis to go through the Infractions Committee process as has been done before and have the right to rebut any and all findings at their discretion. Whisper campaigns are nothing more than rumor, unless you are talking about a former coach willing to take on their former employer as a witness.
 

Dean S said:
The difference between your first statement and the above statement is your suggestion of witness testimony. The NCAA will not investigate athletes randomly. They will not snoop into their business without probable cause. The stake in the ground was the substantial probable cause at PSU. The difference in the NCAA approach is really quite simple. They are more willing to accept outside investigation material in their decision when the accused University has consented to the results of the investigation. PSU set the standard with accepting the results of the investigation with a Consent Decree. So, if a University does not accept the findings, it appears they have basis to go through the Infractions Committee process as has been done before and have the right to rebut any and all findings at their discretion. Whisper campaigns are nothing more than rumor, unless you are talking about a former coach willing to take on their former employer as a witness.
Click to expand...

There is clearly a distinction in what I've written, but I still believe the pressure will be on the NCAA to become more intrusive. Sometimes that will be justified and sometimes it won't be and I think the line has been blurred. Penn State was a lay-up because the crimes were so heinous and the cover-up so obvious. My guess is next time won't be so easy.
 

About right as well. I have zero problem beating the crap out of the progam and sending them back to the stone ages for what happened, and I have no problem with JoePa losing his wins. The only thing I kinda have an issue with with are the players that had nothing to do with this vacate their wins. Not sure how that works, but would be horrible if they lost all their stats like they never played college football at all.
 



If you think the penalty is "fair" you must also belive that current players should not be able to transfer. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
 

Goldmember said:
If you think the penalty is "fair" you must also belive that current players should not be able to transfer. Which one is it? You can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...

I'm curious as to your logic here. Why do you think someone can't have it both ways?
 

Gopher07 said:
I'm curious as to your logic here. Why do you think someone can't have it both ways?
Click to expand...

Who, exactly, is a post-season ban attempting to punnish? Saying "the program" in this instance is not a sufficient response.

It is fairly obvious that the NCAA is attempting to punnish, mostly, current players. They attempt to punnish them for their affinity to PSU, yet allow them to transfer and dodge their punishment (which they, themselves, have issued). :confused:
 

Goldmember said:
Who, exactly, is a post-season ban attempting to punnish? Saying "the program" in this instance is not a sufficient response.

It is fairly obvious that the NCAA is attempting to punnish, mostly, current players. They attempt to punnish them for their affinity to PSU, yet allow them to transfer and dodge their punishment (which they, themselves, have issued). :confused:
Click to expand...

Penn State is who is being punished. If Penn State is not an entity that can be held accountable for its actions, then how can it have contracts and property? They can't say "We're not bound by this contract because the person who signed it no longer works here", and people can't take Penn State's property claiming that the people who obtained that property are no longer there, so it no longer belongs to Penn State. They players aren't being punished, they can transfer if they wish.
 

IMO, it's less about penalizing and more about deterring future transgressions.

The punishment, then, is about right (again, IMO) in that it should sufficiently deter other programs from making the same mistakes (note, similar mistakes will probably happen at some point in the future, but logically most administrators and oversight people should try like hell to avoid the penalties that Penn State received).

At the same time, the NCAA offering the option to players to leave Penn State, or leave the football program but remain on scholarship, gives those players a chance to get out (which I believe is fair), and while at the same time adding to the reasons why a program would not want to suffer the same fate in the future.
 

As far as whether this is worse or better than the death penalty, there have been reports on other outlets (I think I saw this on ESPN, but I could be wrong) that the President of PSU reportedly told someone that the NCAA gave PSU a choice - accept the penalties as listed, or receive the death penalty for up to 4 years.

If that's true, then PSA had no choice - a 4-year death penalty would, for all practical purposes, force them to start from scratch. It's questionable whether they could even play D1 FB - they might have had to come back as a 1AA program.

The current penalties are harsh, but the program will survive. The next 2-3 years will be rough, and they'll have to rely on walk-ons for depth, but it's doable. I expect to see them downgrade their non-conference schedule as soon as possible.

As far as "Fairness," I also think this punishes people (the new coach, assistants and players) who had nothing to do with the scandal. I think the NCAA over-reacted because of the public outcry - and I do think this sets a precedent for future cases. If something like the Gopher Basketball academic scandal happened today, I think the penalties would be much more severe.
 

RodentRampage said:
Penn State is who is being punished. If Penn State is not an entity that can be held accountable for its actions, then how can it have contracts and property? They can't say "We're not bound by this contract because the person who signed it no longer works here", and people can't take Penn State's property claiming that the people who obtained that property are no longer there, so it no longer belongs to Penn State. They players aren't being punished, they can transfer if they wish.
Click to expand...

Ultimately, it is real people that must absorb any punishment or any benefit. Real people who have eyes and noses. If the players leave, new recipiants of the punishment (and benefactors) emerge.

People call for organizational punishment for the simple reason that they are too scared to confront and battle real culprits. It gives them the ability to claim (and feel) like they are exacting justice, when in reality they are just creating more injustice.

The NCAA (and the mob of sports-talk radio pundits) are continuing to participate in precisely the same sort of cowardice that created these problems to begin with. They are all tripping over each other to show how outraged they are by saying "come down hard" on PSU, etc, etc. But they are all just a bunch of sad , shivering piss-ants. Just like JoPa was. Their "leadership" consistes of exacting nonsensical notions of justice in the interest of self-preservation.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
As far as whether this is worse or better than the death penalty, there have been reports on other outlets (I think I saw this on ESPN, but I could be wrong) that the President of PSU reportedly told someone that the NCAA gave PSU a choice - accept the penalties as listed, or receive the death penalty for up to 4 years.

If that's true, then PSA had no choice - a 4-year death penalty would, for all practical purposes, force them to start from scratch. It's questionable whether they could even play D1 FB - they might have had to come back as a 1AA program.

The current penalties are harsh, but the program will survive. The next 2-3 years will be rough, and they'll have to rely on walk-ons for depth, but it's doable. I expect to see them downgrade their non-conference schedule as soon as possible.

As far as "Fairness," I also think this punishes people (the new coach, assistants and players) who had nothing to do with the scandal. I think the NCAA over-reacted because of the public outcry - and I do think this sets a precedent for future cases. If something like the Gopher Basketball academic scandal happened today, I think the penalties would be much more severe.
Click to expand...

What I remember hearing was either 'more than one year', or 'multiple years'. Never heard 4 years.

I think the rough stretch may be more like 8-10 years at least. Penn State may never get back to the level it once was.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
I think the NCAA over-reacted because of the public outcry - and I do think this sets a precedent for future cases.
Click to expand...

Important thoughts. The NCAA clearly over-reacted because of public outcry. And that, itself, is a huuuuuuuge problem. It suggests they are no longer capable af acting in a regulatory capacity. An organization that is tasked with creating and enforcing rules cannot base its "enforcement" on public opinion. They become immediately irrelevant as soon as they do.

One could argue that, since this did not create a competetive advantage on the field for PSU (ie. it wasn't "cheating"), it falls outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction entirely.

As the BCS partnerships grow stronger, the NCAA is losing its reason for existance in major football. They capitalized on the talk-radio knee-jerk reactions to extend the scope of their power. The only valuable service they still served is to create and enforce rules that prevent "cheating". Now that they have demonstrated that they cannot do this, there is no longer a reason for college football to keep them on the payroll.

The primary benefactor of the sanctions, so far, appears to be Lane Kiffin and USC. Nothing could highlight the ineffectiveness of the NCAA in regulating college football more than this fact.
 

If we have learned anything from professional sports it is the need to give the top guy dictatorial powers. It is the only way to control the billionaire team owners, millionaire players and their unions, big buck advertisers, and highly paid sports agents. The NCAA has been far too bureaucratic during its entire history and as a result intercollegiate sports is totally out of control and dominated by a relatively few big time programs with access to huge amounts of money and the willingness to do just about anything to appease their alumni and preserve their status at the top of the college sports heap. I believe what happened to Penn State yesterday is only the opening salvo by college presidents (through the NCAA) to finally take control of college sports once and for all.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

''NCAA President Mark Emmert said in an interview with The Associated Press that he doesn't think any comparisons can be made between the penalties Penn State received and what any other schools might face in the future. Yet he said he hopes the case will serve as a warning to other NCAA members. One of the grave dangers stemming from our love of sports is that the sports themselves can become too big to fail, indeed, too big to even challenge,'' Emmert said. ''The result can be an erosion of academic values that are replaced by the value of hero worship and winning at all costs. All involved in intercollegiate athletics must be watchful that programs and individuals do not overwhelm the values of higher education.''

Ed Ray, the NCAA Executive Committee chair and Oregon State president, said university presidents and chancellors let the NCAA know at a meeting a year ago that a change in the culture of college athletics is needed. ''They said, 'We've had enough. This has to stop. We have to reassert our responsibilities and charge to oversee intercollegiate athletics,''' Ray said. ''So the first question you asked is, does this send a message? The message is, the presidents and the chancellors are in charge.''

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/emmert-hopes-penn-state-penalties-163925031--ncaaf.html

 

50PoundHead said:
There is clearly a distinction in what I've written, but I still believe the pressure will be on the NCAA to become more intrusive. Sometimes that will be justified and sometimes it won't be and I think the line has been blurred. Penn State was a lay-up because the crimes were so heinous and the cover-up so obvious. My guess is next time won't be so easy.
Click to expand...

You may be right.
 

Go4Broke said:
If we have learned anything from professional sports it is the need to give the top guy dictatorial powers. It is the only way to control the billionaire team owners, millionaire players and their unions, big buck advertisers, and highly paid sports agents. The NCAA has been far too bureaucratic during its entire history and as a result intercollegiate sports is totally out of control and dominated by a relatively few big time programs with access to huge amounts of money and the willingness to do just about anything to appease their alumni and preserve their status at the top of the college sports heap. I believe what happened to Penn State yesterday is only the opening salvo by college presidents (through the NCAA) to finally take control of college sports once and for all. [/I]
Click to expand...

Too much power often leads to corruption. More so when one person has that power.

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely........Lord Acton
 

Goldmember said:
Ultimately, it is real people that must absorb any punishment or any benefit. Real people who have eyes and noses. If the players leave, new recipiants of the punishment (and benefactors) emerge.
Click to expand...

Punishments may have negative effects on people, but this doesn't mean they are being punished.

People call for organizational punishment for the simple reason that they are too scared to confront and battle real culprits. It gives them the ability to claim (and feel) like they are exacting justice, when in reality they are just creating more injustice.
Click to expand...

Either an organization can be held accountable, or it cannot. If it cannot, then what basis is there for this organization to make contracts or have property? That's like saying that a business may demand money for transactions made by people who are no longer with the company, but saying they don't owe money on transactions made by people who are no longer with the company.
 

short ornery norwegian said:
As far as whether this is worse or better than the death penalty, there have been reports on other outlets (I think I saw this on ESPN, but I could be wrong) that the President of PSU reportedly told someone that the NCAA gave PSU a choice - accept the penalties as listed, or receive the death penalty for up to 4 years.

If that's true, then PSA had no choice - a 4-year death penalty would, for all practical purposes, force them to start from scratch. It's questionable whether they could even play D1 FB - they might have had to come back as a 1AA program.

The current penalties are harsh, but the program will survive. The next 2-3 years will be rough, and they'll have to rely on walk-ons for depth, but it's doable. I expect to see them downgrade their non-conference schedule as soon as possible.

As far as "Fairness," I also think this punishes people (the new coach, assistants and players) who had nothing to do with the scandal. I think the NCAA over-reacted because of the public outcry - and I do think this sets a precedent for future cases. If something like the Gopher Basketball academic scandal happened today, I think the penalties would be much more severe.
Click to expand...

Isn't that the case in most situations though? What happened to USC and Ohio St. punished many people who had nothing to do with it.

Maybe something needs to be changed in how schools are punished. But I don't know how it is done when most of the time, the people who did the wrong things are no longer there.
 

Goldmember said:
Important thoughts. The NCAA clearly over-reacted because of public outcry. And that, itself, is a huuuuuuuge problem. It suggests they are no longer capable af acting in a regulatory capacity. An organization that is tasked with creating and enforcing rules cannot base its "enforcement" on public opinion. They become immediately irrelevant as soon as they do.

One could argue that, since this did not create a competetive advantage on the field for PSU (ie. it wasn't "cheating"), it falls outside of the NCAA's jurisdiction entirely.

As the BCS partnerships grow stronger, the NCAA is losing its reason for existance in major football. They capitalized on the talk-radio knee-jerk reactions to extend the scope of their power. The only valuable service they still served is to create and enforce rules that prevent "cheating". Now that they have demonstrated that they cannot do this, there is no longer a reason for college football to keep them on the payroll.

The primary benefactor of the sanctions, so far, appears to be Lane Kiffin and USC. Nothing could highlight the ineffectiveness of the NCAA in regulating college football more than this fact.
Click to expand...

Although it did not create an advantage on the field, there's no doubt their cover up had a lot to do with protecting the image of the program. Without a doubt, their in-actions was to protect the Penn St. football program. That's why I don't have a big problem with them getting involved.
 


The timing of Joe Pa's death may have been the key to making him the sacrificial lamb. Make it look like he covered it up and accept your punishment to get people to look the other way. Its just way too convenient for me to believe the school ordered the investigation and the investigator places most of the blame on the dead guy. Pretty hard to defend yourself from the grave.

Then again, this could be just a conspiracy theory and a wild one at that. There are just too many connections and wierd coincidences throughout that piece that make you wonder how deep this could go. I can't think of one reason why Sandusky would have been allowed access to the facilities and the perks he got if Joe Pa really wanted him out of there other than the obvious

To add fuel to this fire, some have questioned the motivation of Joe Pa negotiating a $3M buy-out in early 2011, right after the grand jury. Some would suggest that Joe knew the fire was coming, but I am going to stand by my judgement that JoePa was a figure head in the football program and within in the Paterno household. I could see someone behind the scenes in the Paterno family negotiating a deal that would secure the financial security of the family... I think its also interesting that JoePa's cancer was diagnosed about a week after all this stuff hit the fan and that he died two months later. Coincidence?

Type of cancer is unusual in non-smokers...

http://articles.philly.com/2012-01-24/news/30659574_1_small-cell-lung-cancer-aggressive-cancer
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom