Penn State: Possible Lengthy Bowl Ban amd Scholarship Losses

[Jikkle]

The only thing I'm against is the removal of wins since this was a case where there was nothing that gave an advantage on the field.

For one you're not going to erase what happened these past 14 years in anyone's minds but mainly because you shouldn't wipe out all the work and effort of the players who had nothing to do with it.

 

[MHSL82]

The only thing I'm against is the removal of wins since this was a case where there was nothing that gave an advantage on the field.

For one you're not going to erase what happened these past 14 years in anyone's minds but mainly because you shouldn't wipe out all the work and effort of the players who had nothing to do with it.

I'm ok with it, but how could you not be ok with it but be ok with players who had nothing to do with it losing other things like bowl games, fewer teammates with scholarships (more losing), etc.? Taking the wins away to be seemed to me the most lenient of the sanctions. Now, if someone wanted to boast they were better than Penn State because Penn had no wins in 2000, then they're just stupid or overly technical.

 

[threelittleturds]

I'm ok with it, but how could you not be ok with it but be ok with players who had nothing to do with it losing other things like bowl games, fewer teammates with scholarships (more losing), etc.? Taking the wins away to be seemed to me the most lenient of the sanctions. Now, if someone wanted to boast they were better than Penn State because Penn had no wins in 2000, then they're just stupid or overly technical.

Me too, because haven't they said that the reason Sandusky abruptly "retired" was mainly due to the fact that he was first found out. So basically they erased everything Penn State did since the cover-up began.

 

[Bemular]

The one thing that taking away the victories does is it removes Mr. Complicit (JoePa) from being the winningest HC in NCAA Div1 history. (Bobby Bowden now owns that title).

 

[Kinzu]

I liked the idea I heard on the radio coming home from work today. Why couldn't they just vacate JoePa's wins and let the school and players keep theirs?

And it was a competitive advantage, do you think all those players would have gone to Penn State if their parents knew their was a child molester on campus? That's why Penn State was covering it up. It would have impacted their recruiting because parents would have turned their kids away.

Still it makes no sense to me. They could have just banned him from the school in 1998 and been free of it even if they didn't turn him in because frankly in 1998 all they knew about seems to be that he was a suspect of the crime. Even come 2002 when McQuery made his claims they could have just come out with it and turned him over. I mean sure it would hurt your recruiting that year and maybe the next but then it's over with and the school maintains it's image.

But by covering it up they have basically killed Penn State. I'm sorry to say, they can take down a statue but Joe Paterno is and will always be for years to come Penn State. He is now dead and the school just got buried with him. You don't replace a career that lasted that long and became such a huge part of that school by just removing a statue. The point is Penn State will never be the same again. Their Hero is tarnished and their beloved program in shambles. 1-2 years of a few recruits not choosing your school or complete dismantling of your entire schools history? hmm.... should have been an easy choice not to mention the morale and humane one.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Again, not trying to stir up a big death penalty debate here, just pointing out that there is strong evidence that a more lenient criminal justice system does not necessarily lead to more crime. However, my personal belief is that most people who commit crimes that would lead to the death penalty are not deterred by the death penalty. First, I don't think too many people genuinely view, say, 20+ years in prison as all that much "better" than the death penalty, and second, I don't think murderers and rapists really stop to think about the ramifications before they do it.

As said, if we're talking applying the death penalty more broadly, I imagine it would have some deterrent effect. But I think there are pretty serious ethical questions when it comes to the death penalty for less serious crimes.

Not saying you're wrong, but what's the evidence here?

 

[h-hour]

I think anyone tied with the school who knew about this and didnt come forward should have been given a pretty hefty jail sentence. That along with the 60 Million dollar fine. Hell, all profits from the program over the next X number of years should be given to charity.

But vacating wins and taking away scholarships and whatnot only hurts the innocent kids who chose to go there for school and to play football.

 

[clyde_carbon]

I think anyone tied with the school who knew about this and didnt come forward should have been given a pretty hefty jail sentence. That along with the 60 Million dollar fine. Hell, all profits from the program over the next X number of years should be given to charity.

But vacating wins and taking away scholarships and whatnot only hurts the innocent kids who chose to go there for school and to play football.

I disagree. The football program was the centerpiece behind the entire investigation, regardless of whether current or former players had anything to do with it. The football program HAD to be hit hard. Yeah, it's not fair, but it is what it is. Plus, they did give the players the option of transfering without penalty.

 

[h-hour]

I disagree. The football program was the centerpiece behind the entire investigation, regardless of whether current or former players had anything to do with it. The football program HAD to be hit hard. Yeah, it's not fair, but it is what it is. Plus, they did give the players the option of transfering without penalty.

Good point.

I'd still like to see everyone involved in that mess brought to justice though.

 

[RobertPhD01]

I think that the economy, unemployment, drug use and a few others lead to criminal and often behavior. Often times the overall number of crimes and people involved in those crimes lead to the severity of the crimes, more victims and more people being incarcerated. Because of the cost of living, lack of jobs people will continue to make bad decisions. If you are not happy with your income you have a couple of options, go to school, move somewhere cheaper, stay out of jail Go 49ers!!

 

[h-hour]

I disagree. The football program was the centerpiece behind the entire investigation, regardless of whether current or former players had anything to do with it. The football program HAD to be hit hard. Yeah, it's not fair, but it is what it is. Plus, they did give the players the option of transfering without penalty.

The more I think about your point, the more I agree with it. Clyde: the voice of reason.

 

[MHSL82]

I liked the idea I heard on the radio coming home from work today. Why couldn't they just vacate JoePa's wins and let the school and players keep theirs?

And it was a competitive advantage, do you think all those players would have gone to Penn State if their parents knew their was a child molester on campus? That's why Penn State was covering it up. It would have impacted their recruiting because parents would have turned their kids away.

Still it makes no sense to me. They could have just banned him from the school in 1998 and been free of it even if they didn't turn him in because frankly in 1998 all they knew about seems to be that he was a suspect of the crime. Even come 2002 when McQuery made his claims they could have just come out with it and turned him over. I mean sure it would hurt your recruiting that year and maybe the next but then it's over with and the school maintains it's image.

But by covering it up they have basically killed Penn State. I'm sorry to say, they can take down a statue but Joe Paterno is and will always be for years to come Penn State. He is now dead and the school just got buried with him. You don't replace a career that lasted that long and became such a huge part of that school by just removing a statue. The point is Penn State will never be the same again. Their Hero is tarnished and their beloved program in shambles. 1-2 years of a few recruits not choosing your school or complete dismantling of your entire schools history? hmm.... should have been an easy choice not to mention the morale and humane one.

If I had two equal schools, I would pick the team that didn't have the child molestor, but I don't expect parents to choose a different team for their non-kid child because of this if there weren't sanctions. There's just too much draw by a great football team. Sandusky wasn't going for 19-22 year old players. Kid camps, yeah, I would never send my kid there.

When you say there's a child molestor on campus, you mean on the team, because unfortunately, there's probably a few child molestors on every campus. Kids shouldn't be in the lockerrooms... I was going to say unless supervised but I don't trust the supervisor anymore.

 

[MHSL82]

I think anyone tied with the school who knew about this and didnt come forward should have been given a pretty hefty jail sentence. That along with the 60 Million dollar fine. Hell, all profits from the program over the next X number of years should be given to charity.

But vacating wins and taking away scholarships and whatnot only hurts the innocent kids who chose to go there for school and to play football.

That should happen, but just like my suggestion of the money going to help child abuse victims, it isn't practical. We'd have to get authority to do so, if done, there would have to be oversight. Sadly, if it's money for charity or a new scoreboard, schools may choose the scoreboard when they would have kept it for profit absent the sanctions. Take away the reason to save and boy people start spending.

 

[MHSL82]

I disagree. The football program was the centerpiece behind the entire investigation, regardless of whether current or former players had anything to do with it. The football program HAD to be hit hard. Yeah, it's not fair, but it is what it is. Plus, they did give the players the option of transfering without penalty.

"Steven Bench and his teammates will pay the most meaningful share of the NCAA portion of the penance for what Penn State's leaders did. That isn't right, but that is the NCAA's only option because it lacks the power to punish those who actually did wrong. The NCAA did reserve the right to punish those complicit in the cover-up, but why offer them due process and not the current players?"​

"Now the Benches must decide whether Steven will stay at Penn State -- where he'll play on a depleted roster and never make a postseason game -- or whether he'll try to latch on somewhere else. For Bench, this is probably a less difficult decision than it will be for his older teammates. They have progressed toward Penn State degrees and built relationships at the school. Do they just pick up and move? Or do they stay?

One of the things Emmert got right was granting blanket permission to Penn State players to transfer to any school and play immediately. To further help those players, the NCAA is allowing schools at the 85-player scholarship limit to go over the limit to take Penn State transfers provided that they dock themselves a comparable number of scholarships the following year."​

"Sophomores and freshmen who have no better options beyond that level are probably better off staying. Anyone who can get a scholarship at a competitive power conference school should probably leave. For upperclassmen, it's a little bit trickier. If they're likely NFL draftees, they should leave immediately. A good program will take them. If they aren't NFL-bound, then they need to consider staying. Before leaving, they must examine how many of their course credits will transfer. Did they spend three or four years working toward a degree that isn't available at another school? Will they lose progress by transferring? Is the new school's degree as prestigious as the one from Penn State? Which degree makes it easier to get a job? These are the questions those players must ask. For those who have already graduated, there is little harm in leaving and getting a free master's degree while playing elsewhere."

"For the moment, the players must decide their best course of action now that the NCAA has dropped its hammer on Penn State. Some will stay. Most will probably leave. They didn't do anything wrong, but they'll have to pay a price anyway."​

Penn State players face transfer choice after NCAA sanctions - Andy Staples - SI.com

I didn't put this in a quote box so people could bold whatever they want to respond to in the acticle.

You're right, even when they are allowed to transfer freely, this sucks for them. They even have to worry about credits transferring to the same major if they need to graduate (but won't go to NFL). But as you said, it is what it is. What else could they do?

 

[Crimsoncrew]

Not saying you're wrong, but what's the evidence here?

Western and Northern Europe.

 

[MHSL82]

Basically the rest of the article for those who don't want to go to the link.

NCAA president Mark Emmert didn't punish former president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley or former vice president Gary Schultz at all during Monday's dog-and-pony-show press conference in Indianapolis.

Emmert and the NCAA stripped coach Joe Paterno of his wins since 1998 in a symbolic gesture that won't destroy the late Paterno's legacy or reputation beyond what Paterno's own wrongdoing already has. The $60 million fine is a good, constructive sanction because it will go toward helping child abuse victims, but it is easily payable by a school with a $1.8 billion endowment.

Bench spoke to college coaches and administrators trying to gauge whether he should allow his son to sign with Penn State instead of taking the scholarship offer he already had from Rice. They told Bench and his family this case was different because Penn State hadn't broken any NCAA bylaws. Monday's sanctions blindsided him.

It remains unclear whether schools that face scholarship reductions because of NCAA sanctions -- such as USC, Ohio State or North Carolina -- can take Penn State players. In light of the fact that Emmert and the NCAA have now set the precedent that they will tackle issues that actually matter, it makes the penalties handed to USC for Reggie Bush taking money from an agent seem pretty silly. So it would be poetic justice if USC won the national title using a defensive tackle acquired because of the Penn State sanctions.)

No matter what anyone says, the death penalty would have been worse. Canceling an entire season (or two) would have cost Penn State even more on top of the fine because the school would have lost millions in football ticket sales and television payouts from the Big Ten. That also could have hurt the other sports at Penn State which rely on football revenue to survive. From a competitive standpoint, erasing the program for a few years would have set the rebuilding process back even further. What will now take 10-15 years might have taken at least 20.

With the possible exception of freshmen who redshirt this year, no current Penn State player will play in another postseason game because of the four-year ban. Had Emmert truly wanted to marginalize Penn State's program for decades, he could have made this a 10-, 15- or 20-year ban. Still, that doesn't mean Penn State will be fine in four years. Because of the ban, no elite recruit is likely to even consider Penn State for at least three years. USC survived its two-year ban so well because Lane Kiffin could promise recruits that they would play for championships for at least two seasons. Penn State coach Bill O'Brien can't make that promise for two years, and it's unlikely that an elite player would consider the possibility until at least the year before the ban is lifted. Meanwhile, the loss of 20 scholarships a year beginning in the 2013-14 school year will ensure that Penn State doesn't have the depth to compete in the Big Ten. Who will go to Penn State now? Players considering low-level Big Ten and high-level MAC schools who decide Penn State's facilities and resources trump the possibility of playing in the Little Caesars Pizza Bowl.

During the sanctions, and probably for several years after, Penn State will be comparable to Indiana or another low-level Big Ten program and will recruit like one of those programs. The best players in Pennsylvania will go elsewhere. Expect Ohio State, Michigan and Notre Dame to scoop up many of the top recruits in the state. During this time, it will be interesting to learn whether Penn State fans love their program or whether they loved their winning program. If they keep packing Beaver Stadium through what will be some awfully lean years, then it's true love, and they'll probably provide the resources to help the program recover after the sanctions expire. If they stop coming to games, then Penn State may never climb back to prominence.

That question won't be answered until long after the eligibility of Bench and the other Nittany Lions expires.

 

[MHSL82]

Western and Northern Europe.

There seems to be as much difference between Europe and America as there is between the two forms of punishment. Different people react differently than others, but I agree if it's not working here, we need to try something different than we are. But it won't necessarily be what works there as the right answer. It can't hurt to try... or maybe it could. Depending on what the person answering this question thinks about the situation.

 

[NinerSickness]

So now that I've seen the punishment, my respect for the NCAA didn't go up at all. It didn't go down, but that's because I thought they were a bunch of jerks in the first place. It could've been a lot worse (meaning less severe), but it wasn't as bad as I thought it was going to be.

I thought Mark Emmert's speech was extremely lame. He justified a less severe punishment by saying he wanted "cultural change." One has nothing to do with the other. In fact, the more severe the punishment the more seriously they're going to take cover-ups in the future, so he made zero sense.

I also thought the 60 million dollar fine was a stupid puishment. They're fining a STATE college. Tax payers are going to take a hit because of this fine. They're just going to cause end user pain because of that fine like stupid cities (Oakland) who blow all their money on superfluous crap and then cut crucial services like police. And there will be no accountability on how that $60 million is spent. In other words, it's a slush fund.

At least they took down Joe Pa's statue. They should melt it down as far as I'm concerned.

 

[clyde_carbon]

Western and Northern Europe.

What do they have to do with America? Completely two different peoples, cultures, traditions. Europe is generally much less violent than America, but I doubt it's because they're more lenient on criminals.

 

[clyde_carbon]

You're right, even when they are allowed to transfer freely, this sucks for them. They even have to worry about credits transferring to the same major if they need to graduate (but won't go to NFL). But as you said, it is what it is. What else could they do?

Well, they have to worry about the stuff any other regular student would have to worry about when they transfer, yes. But usually when a player transfers to another school they'd have to sit out a year - the NCAA eliminated that in this case. I'm not saying it's entirely fair, but the notion that the football program didn't need to be punished is a ridiculous one when it was the centerpiece of the investigation.