NCAA Sanctions: "DP" for Penn Football, or...?

ynotdivein said:

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?

Click to expand...

Steely Dan said:

Oops! Here's another mistake I made. It's corrected by the same article as my post above; http://www.centurylink.net/news/rea...ws_id=19014094&src=most_popular_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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

BigCat said:

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/_/id/53718/scholarship-penalties-could-crush-psu

Click to expand...

cityslick said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.
---

Click to expand...

Mama-cita said:

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

Click to expand...

Angels_Not_Forgotten said:

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

Click to expand...

Rlaub44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

BigCat said:

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

Click to expand...

BigCat said:

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

Click to expand...

Rlaub44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

J. J. in Phila said:

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.

Click to expand...

BigCat said:

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

Click to expand...

Rlaub44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Rlaub44 said:

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.

Click to expand...

IzzyBlanche said:

BBM.

I totally agree and I don't understand why these points which have been made repeatedly, not only by you, are also repeatedly ignored. :waitasec:

Click to expand...