View Poll Results: Should the NCAA give Penn State the "death penalty"?

Voters
94. You may not vote on this poll
  • No. It's not fair to students, players, or coaches who had nothing to do with this scandal.

    28 29.79%
  • Yes, for one year.

    12 12.77%
  • Yes, for two years.

    10 10.64%
  • Yes, for three years.

    9 9.57%
  • Yes, for four (or more) years.

    32 34.04%
  • Not sure.

    5 5.32%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 13 of 34 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 ... LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 502
  1. #181
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    The beautiful roundabout of Context, Veracity, and JUSTICE
    Posts
    11,428
    Can one of our resident college sports analysts help clarify this for me? I took the Big Ten's separate announcement that Penn State will not share in the Bowl revenues to be a separate sanction from the NCAA's decision that they will not be allowed to play in any Bowl games, even if they qualify by record.

    I took this to mean that all Big Ten teams take some share in revenues from Big Ten bowl games, whether they play in them or not. Is that correct?
    You can hold back from the suffering of the world. You have free permission to do so and it is in accordance with your nature.
    But perhaps this very holding back is the one suffering you could have avoided.
    Franz Kafka

    Be not simply good. Be good for something.
    HDT


  2. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to ynotdivein For This Useful Post:


  3. #182
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    5,085
    Quote Originally Posted by ynotdivein View Post
    Can one of our resident college sports analysts help clarify this for me? I took the Big Ten's separate announcement that Penn State will not share in the Bowl revenues to be a separate sanction from the NCAA's decision that they will not be allowed to play in any Bowl games, even if they qualify by record.

    I took this to mean that all Big Ten teams take some share in revenues from Big Ten bowl games, whether they play in them or not. Is that correct?
    Yes, all of the conference schools receive a portion of the bowl revenues from whatever teams play bowls from that conference. By not allowing them to receive funds, the BIG 10 was basically paralleling the NCAA decision regarding bowls. I believe that money could have been redistributed to the other schools, but by allocating to charities, it keeps the Big 10 from appearing to "profit" by the Penn State sanctions.


  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to raeann For This Useful Post:


  5. #183
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
    Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/read..._viewed&page=2

    ...The scholarship reductions mean Penn State's roster will be capped at 65 scholarship players beginning in 2014. The normal scholarship limit for major college football programs is 85. Playing with 20 less is devastating to a program that tries to compete at the highest level of the sport....

    However, I still stick to my point that the loss of scholarships is meaningless. 65 scholarships when you have a 22 starter team is a drop in the bucket. JMO
    I have to disagree. The loss of scholarships will hurt Penn State BIG time. Will it hurt them enough? That's a a more difficult question. I'm only suggesting that it is a very substantial penalty. It will take Penn State a long time to recover, in my opinion.

    Scholarship penalties could crush PSU

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/...ould-crush-psu

    A reasonable conclusion: Penn State football might not be back to normal in terms of its roster until the 2020 season or so.


  6. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to BigCat For This Useful Post:


  7. #184
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Paradise AKA San Diego, CA
    Posts
    2,171
    Something was niggling around at the back of my mind today and it finally came to the forefront. It's from Rocky Horror Picture Show

    [PSU], say goodbye to all this...

    Audience: GOODBYE ALL THIS!

    ...and hello to...oblivion

    Audience: HELLO OBLIVION! HOW'S THE WIFE AND KIDS?

    I admit to schadenfreude at JP's disgrace. All his holier-than-thouness and media exaltation has rubbed me the wrong way for a long time.

    However my gloating is vastly tempered by the knowledge of what JS's victims endured, and will continue to endure, for the rest of their lives.
    Be kind, for everyone is fighting a great battle.


  8. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to IzzyBlanche For This Useful Post:


  9. #185
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    7,230
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    I have to disagree. The loss of scholarships will hurt Penn State BIG time. Will it hurt them enough? That's a a more difficult question. I'm only suggesting that it is a very substantial penalty. It will take Penn State a long time to recover, in my opinion.

    Scholarship penalties could crush PSU

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/...ould-crush-psu
    Look at it from a recruiting standpoint also. They were already hamstrung in recruiting due to public perception, reducing the scholarships and taking away the bowls put a huge dent in recruiting.

    Ask yourself for at least four years, what is a kids motivation to play at Penn State now? What's the sell point when the coach comes into the living room of a potential recruit?

    If Penn State played in a lesser conference like say Conference USA that I'd agree the scholarship aspect isn't as big of a deal but they play in the Big Ten, that's big boy football. They will not be able to compete with the teams in their conference with what they are are going to be able to field. That's not even getting into how many transfers they are going to have. They'll be lucky to compete against teams like Indiana and Northwestern.


  10. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to cityslick For This Useful Post:


  11. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,576
    Quote Originally Posted by cityslick View Post
    Look at it from a recruiting standpoint also. They were already hamstrung in recruiting due to public perception, reducing the scholarships and taking away the bowls put a huge dent in recruiting.

    Ask yourself for at least four years, what is a kids motivation to play at Penn State now? What's the sell point when the coach comes into the living room of a potential recruit?

    If Penn State played in a lesser conference like say Conference USA that I'd agree the scholarship aspect isn't as big of a deal but they play in the Big Ten, that's big boy football. They will not be able to compete with the teams in their conference with what they are are going to be able to field. That's not even getting into how many transfers they are going to have. They'll be lucky to compete against teams like Indiana and Northwestern.
    I still believe that the loss of scholarships isn't a big deal. However, I do agree that it will be a hard sell to convince a kid to go to Penn State. Until this fades into the shadows they'll have to be happy with the kids who don't get offers from any other school, and the kids of fanatical Penn State fans or alumni.

    They will eventually get back on their feet.


  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  13. #187
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    25,836
    Can Penn State's hometown survive NCAA sanctions? (AP)
    STATE COLLEGE, Pa. (AP) -- Many in this leafy, vibrant college town nicknamed "Happy Valley" worry the temporary evisceration of Penn State's football program might inflict similar damage on a community that, for years, thrived as fans flocked to home games at the massive football stadium and a far-flung alumni base stayed connected by loyalty - and by checkbook.
    ---
    in-depth article at link above


  14. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to wfgodot For This Useful Post:


  15. #188
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Mama-cita View Post
    Wow wow wow. This is WORSE than the death penalty. Gives coaches and administers all over the country a loud, clear message: don't cover up for child rapists. It's so symbolic and poetic that they are vacating wins back to 1998, the first time Paterno and company could have stopped Jerry and didn't. The true irony is that the program Paterno worked so hard to build and protect (at the expense of those innocent little boys) is crumbling down because of his own inaction. I wish he would have lived to see it. He got off really easy...IMO
    The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln


  16. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  17. #189
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Angels_Not_Forgotten View Post
    You know, yesterday thinking about this. I thought there was no way that it will be close to being a fair or just punishment. I wanted the dp. But honestly, that's to good for them.

    See to these guys, its always been about football. So basic. A game. A sport. I had over thought this to the highest level, hoping, praying I would/could understand. And I finally got it.

    It wasn't such the building of a man into a god,it was about a game. A silly game. To be dp'ed for a year and then to be right back at where they were in the game...it was to good for them.

    I still think no punishment could be severe enough, but, I'm actually feeling OK about it. Hit them where it will hurt them. The next 5 years will be horrible for that program. Take their power. Make them feel small and insignificant.

    Note: I know in the grand scheme of it how I feel doesn't matter in the least. I just pray that when those courageous victims see this coverage, they are feeling some sort of peace.

    Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
    Victim 4's attorney wishes the NCAA/PSU had consulted the victims; he isn't sure this is what his client would want.

    http://www.wgal.com/news/susquehanna...z/-/index.html
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln


  18. The Following User Says Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  19. #190
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    786
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.
    I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

    Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

    I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

    JMO


  20. The Following 10 Users Say Thank You to BigCat For This Useful Post:


  21. #191
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Rochester, New York
    Posts
    30,576
    I think this shows how former players are struggling with JP's public and locker room image with the stuff coming out now.

    http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/bi...?twobillsdrive

    Scott admits he'd think twice
    By Nick Veronica
    News Sports Reporter

    ...The inner conflict of learning what Paterno really was hasn't been easy for him. Paterno was an idol.

    "For a while, I was struggling with separating the message from the messenger," Scott said. "It's kind of hard, because he's close to me and meant so much to me, but obviously, he dropped the ball....


  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Steely Dan For This Useful Post:


  23. #192
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    7,026
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

    Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

    I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

    JMO
    Thanks was not enough, BigCat! This is what I've been trying to say in a couple of posts but you got it across so much better!


  24. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Reader For This Useful Post:


  25. #193
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by BigCat View Post
    I'm on the complete opposite side. I think vacating the wins back to 1998 was the most important part of the punishment. It sent the message to every university in the nation that just because local law enforcement clears one of your players or coaches of criminal wrongdoing, that does mean you are in the clear. Freeh stressed, in his press conference, that the least Paterno could have done was notifiy his staff and keep a watchful eye on Sandusky. Instead, he said nothing. In fact, JP didn't even force him to resign (I was sure he did. I guess I gave him too much credit). Instead, he said Sandusky could coach as long as he wanted or take a golden parachute and continue to bring kids on campus.

    Also, Sandusky was allowed to take victim 4 to bowl games AFTER the 1998 incident. Inexcusable. It does not matter that the local, elected official did not press charges against Sandusky. He may have had his own reasons for not wanting to pursue the matter. It's more important that the university's own investigator recommended pressing charges. The university had an obligation to protect children, or at the very least to prevent children from being assaulted on campus or at university sponsored events.

    I'm passionate about this issue because I have some understanding of the pressure on LE to do no harm to the local football team. You are absolutely correct to point out that it's a strange world when local communities place football players and coaches above the law. But it happens. The NCAA had to send a message.

    JMO
    I appreciate the opportunity to read different opinions here, but this surprises me. I've had trouble understanding why so many people blame PSU officials for 1998.

    Somehow, Sandusky convinced experienced LE officers, a respected DA, the state's Child Abuse investigator, and one of the two therapists that met with the child that he had done nothing more wrong than using poor judgment. And yet Judge Freeh felt that Paterno should have recognized that the experts were wrong, and that he should defame Sandusky with only his suspicions.

    Of course, knowing what we know now, he would have been right to, but I still think going back to 98 to vacate the wins sends the wrong message, because it takes the emphasis away from 2001, which is when the Gang of Four made the real mistake, and of course they continued that up until the end, but IMO, Penn State shouldn't be held responsible for not taking action in 98.

    As to your last sentence, I do agree that the NCAA had to send a message, but I feel including 1998-2000 in the sanctions makes it appear like a knee-jerk punishment, and to me, it's the one aspect of the sanctions that is hard to justify the rationale for, again in my opinion.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln


  26. The Following User Says Thank You to Rlaub44 For This Useful Post:


  27. #194
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Philadelphia, PA
    Posts
    6,188
    Quote Originally Posted by Rlaub44 View Post
    The strange thing is, the part I bolded is the one thing I do disagree with about the NCAA sanctions. In 1998, the Police department, the Department of Welfare, and the District Attorney investigated and gave Sandusky a pass. Vacating wins from 1998 through 2001, when Penn State officials decided to cover up Sandusky's crimes sends a strange message; that somehow the football program should be responsible for what the proper authorities didn't do.
    I have to agree, though I think it makes little difference.

    This wasn't a cover up by Penn State, so far as we know. There was no effort to interfere in the police investigation; the report was called thorough. Outside agencies made the decision, and there is no evidence anyone at Penn State influenced that decision.

    However, I will add a caveat. If DPW or the DA's Office approached Penn State and suggested that there could be a problem, and that advice was ignored, I would agree.

    I am troubled by the 10/13/98 meeting and I would not rule out the possibility of a warning.


    What happened to former Centre County DA Ray Gricar?


  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to J. J. in Phila For This Useful Post:


  29. #195
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by J. J. in Phila View Post
    I have to agree, though I think it makes little difference.

    This wasn't a cover up by Penn State, so far as we know. There was no effort to interfere in the police investigation; the report was called thorough. Outside agencies made the decision, and there is no evidence anyone at Penn State influenced that decision.

    However, I will add a caveat. If DPW or the DA's Office approached Penn State and suggested that there could be a problem, and that advice was ignored, I would agree.

    I am troubled by the 10/13/98 meeting and I would not rule out the possibility of a warning.
    But why meet with Ganter, if the warning was meant for Paterno? The only reason I can think of for a meeting with Ganter would be investigative. Did he contact them with his own concerns? Another of the mysteries left in the notes of the police report.
    "I believe it is an established maxim in morals that he who makes an assertion without knowing whether it is true or false, is guilty of falsehood; and the accidental truth of the assertion, does not justify or excuse him." - Abraham Lincoln


Page 13 of 34 FirstFirst ... 3 11 12 13 14 15 23 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 66
    Last Post: 11-06-2011, 02:11 AM
  2. USC hit hard by NCAA sanctions
    By Dark Knight in forum Up to the Minute
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-11-2010, 03:50 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-15-2003, 07:59 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •