Bob Costas on Meet the Press: 'Death penalty' for PSU football.
This was Bob Costas as "commentator," not reporter. He was not suggesting that the death penalty was imminent; he was suggesting that PSU should voluntarily suspend football for a year. Or else the NCAA should do it.
It was surprising to hear the words, but it is the kind of thing that is a pretty easy position for people like Costas to take. Everybody in the media always seems to know what is best for college football.
Costas did not mention what may be the most interesting enforcement-violation in the PSU story; the university's failure to comply with the Clery Act.
Nice writing here by Casey McDermott of the PSU Daily Collegian:
Costas video appears to not yet be up at the Meet the Press website:
It's not going to happen. PSU will not give up football for a year, it would punish kids that had nothing to do with this. The bad guys are dead, waiting for trial, or waiting for sentencing. I do think PSU is going to have to pay a lot of money to the victims, which they should. It is a very ugly scandel but it did not give them an advantage on the football field, it did however put a black spot on a 1st class program that will never go away.
...would almost certainly allow all current players to transfer with no loss of eligibility. At least that would be my presumption. David Gregory touched on the topic and Costas seemed to suggest that it would be tough rocks for those Penn State players. That seemed to me to indicate that Costas hadn't really thought about the subject seriously. Because I am quite certain that all of the then-current SMU Mustangs were allowed transfer with full eligibility when their school got the death penalty.
No loss of eligibility sure, but forcing all those kids to leave the school they currently play for to go play somewhere else is still a punishment for the kids.
Additionally, you could take it a step further.
Hypothetically, let's say PSU gets the death penalty and their players can transfer and play immediately. One of our Michigan Dlineman has been working hard and has been dedicated to our program for years and he finally has won the starting job. All of a sudden a better PSU Dlineman comes in and takes his starting role.
Maybe it would make the Michigan team better. However, that original Michigan player may feel as if he has been punished for what Joe Paterno did some 700 miles away at a different school while he was in pre-school learning to read. Yeah the team and the best man starts should trump this, but would that not be a natural human emotion deep down to feel punsihed in this situation?
consequences. The argument that a Michigan player might be hurt by suspending PSU football is hardly a reason not to suspend PSU football.
Oh, I completely agree. Just adding a different perspective.
...or is it?
If the Michigan player is that good, then why would the coaches extend a scholarship to a transferring PSU player?
If he still isn't that good of a player, then he should understand the coaches extending a scholarship from an incoming transfer.
This was my thinking as well. Sure, the kid may have the option to transfer, but finding a new school, one with a scholarship, that fits your needs, location, etc. is immensely impractical for an entire team, especially when many of them probably chose PSU for reasons not completely related to football.
I mean, UM athletes pick the school for both the sports and (I hope) for the rest the school has to offer, and I would hope leaving just to play another year would be a difficult decision.
The companies weren't punished. The SEC (the agency, not the conference) didn't force the companies into bankruptcy as punishment for the malfeasance of the brass. They went bankrupt on their own thanks to the actions of individuals that were punished.
I don't get this, really. There is literally nobody left at Penn State who covered up for Jerry Sandusky. People always talk about the death penalty for PSU because it would be "justice" and such. Not one person who covered up for Jerry Sandusky would be hurt by this. There is a failure to separate the nebulous idea of "the program" from the individuals involved.
I am torn on the whole death penalty issue. I have said from the beginning (well before the Freeh reoprt come out) that sanctions need to be placed on the university. The 5 major players are gone, but the culture still remains. The culture of the university, the alumni/fans, and even the community of State College. The clamor of the PSU community to keep the Paterno statue up is pressuring the board to not act. I was appalled when one of trustees actually said: "We don't want to jump the gun again," the trustee said. "When we did that in November, look where we ended up. . ." (from ESPN). The culture that football is everything is still there and the push from the outside will do nothing but stregnthen their resolve.
I'm very aware that this culture is quite prevalent throught most traditional football powers (the girl that committed suicide over the alleged rape at ND was texted "You don't F*** with ND Football"). I would hope that no other school would have a football culture that would allow this to happen, but I never thought there would be any at all.
Take a look at this article written by a PSU alum, employee, child of two PSU emplyees, and a life long resident of State College. It encompesses how I feel about the situation, but from an insiders prospective.
See, I think the argument of "football is king" is weak here. Yes, for people who were directly involved in the football program or who stood to lose their jobs if this came out, yes they protected Sandusky. But this wasn't Happy Valley residents hiding the raping of children. Sure, they like football there, but I've seen no evidence that football is any "more" king there than at most college campuses (A2 included).
If you are wondering how sick the "Football is Everything" culture is at PSU, just head on over to BlackShoeDiaries and read some of the FanPosts and Threads around this scandal.
There are blaming everyone EXCEPT JoePa (even after the Freeh Report! - they think Freeh was bought!!!), including the parents of the victims!!!
This is something that needs to be destroyed so that it can be rebuilt. Without the death penalty, I doubt that anything will really change at PSU.
What's really interesting about that is one of the biggest Paterno defenders is actually a Tennessee fan (or is much better at pretending than RDT was).
situation, many of the players were actively involved in the cheating aspect of the program. The current players of Penn State are as innocent as you can be in this whole sordid affair.
They are sending the message that it is ok for programs to cover up crimes as long as those involved are gone when the crimes are discovered.
Like it or not officials involved with the school and the football program hid key details that could have prevented serious crime. This matter has grave consequences.
You are just as guilty as Joe Paterno of putting football above crime and victims. He turned a blind eye to crimes because it would his program. You argue for a contuation of this program because it could hurt college football in general and the Big 10/PSU in particular.
You have virtually no argument that business will be conducted without distraction at PSU next season. It is far more beneficial to suspend the program (thus sending the right message to other schools) and allow the transfers immediately then it would be to have those kids that do want out to wait a year and deal with all the distraction.
None of the current athletes have anything to do with the scandal but if they play then they will experience 100% of the distraction.
"You are just as guilty as Joe Paterno of putting football above crime and victims."
I don't agree with this at all. I can't speak for who you are responding to, but that goes too far.
No punishment is going to fit the crime. The leaders will likely see prison time though. I think a lot of people want revenge on PSU because the crimes are so shocking.I think a postseason ban will be the likely punishment on the program. To me that seems like the probable "compromise".
Revenge isn't the right word. I hope "justice" is done so that no citizen with something to lose or if difficulties may arise would see it more beneficial to cover up a heinous crime than to do what is right.
If the Freeh report is accurate then Paterno put his program above the consequences of having to answer for a rapist being associated with his program. Those who advocate life as usual with the PSU program present the idea that College Football is more important than the victims. I have no clue how any poster on this board with one breathe could argue that the program shouldn't be punished and with the next breathe call for a removing of the statue of the man who lead the program for the past 40+ years.
There is absolutely no way you can continue the football program without opening up wounds and reliving the details of these crimes, not only in our eyes but also in the eyes of the victims families.
Shut it down and let time pass to help the healing process and then bring it back.
Those who advocate life as usual with the PSU program present the idea that College Football is more important than the victims.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. With that mindset you could suggest any punishment you like up through dropping an actual nuclear bomb on the campus and then say "this is for the victims, you're putting (X) above the victims if you disagree." I'm not kidding, I have seen people use this line to justify closing the entire school permanently. And lumping everyone in with guys like Schultz and Curley is unfair at best.
that Costas hadn't given it some thought, at least not in your characterization. That would have been my response, too--tough.
Agreed. I think Costas is one of the smartest people in sports broadcasting. His opinions are always well reasoned and informative. I was surprised for him to argue this point of view but I disagree entirely. The legal system is where these matters are hashed out and I see no reason the NCAA should be involved in what was at its heart a legal matter. Plus, to do so would be punishing people with no involvement in the crime or its cover up. All parties involved in either have been dismissed from the university or now sit in prison. Hammering PSU just hurts the players, students, fans. I don't think they should have to pay a penalty.
No one needs college football. There is no actual harm that will come to the fans if a football program is suspended.
There was actual harm that came to the boys involved in the matter. Crimes that Paterno did not report because he was worried that harm might come to his program.
Sidenote, he was an awesome dude. He was one of the first people I actually met at UofM. I came from a school in NYC, where virtually no one went to U of M, so during a summer tour and ultimately orientation, I ran into him at the Union and he welcomed me to campus (informally.) I had no idea who he was until someone else told me.
I'm sorry, I can't take many of these arguments in favor of giving them a one year ban/death penalty seriously. The arguments are terribly shortsighted and the analogies to other teams are totally pointless because the effects would be drastically different. Here are some of my reasons:
1. How in the world does suspending the football team send a message to anybody? Who would receive this message that hasn't already? You don't think public officials subject to reporting requirements across the country are already pretty damn aware of what might happen now? The scandal is referenced on every Michigan site I visit, every facebook newsfeed, millions of twitter account, and every news source. Is some administrator out there going to decide to turn somebody in because they are now afraid that their school might lose a season of football? NO! They would turn somebody in because otherwise they would go to "pound you in the ***" prison and have their entire name, family, reputation, and life ruined. I think that would motivate me a little more than not having a season of football.
2. The references to USC, OSU, and Michigan basketball are completely different for many reasons. First, let's talk about punishing the innocent. OSU, USC, and Michigan lost out on a season or two of hanging up a banner by not being able to compete in the post season. Big deal. It sucks and all, but what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? USC and OSU are still pulling in great recruits, still playing and winning games, and their players are still playing for the school, team, and coach of their choice, and they still get a degree from the school of their choice and are still top NFL prospects regardless of what Reggie Bush or Terrell Pryor did.
Fast forward to PSU and them losing a season or getting a death penalty of indefinite duration. Let's look at the effects. The players would likely have to stay and give up their love of football or transfer. Staying would kill or severly damage any NFL prospects as they would not play for at least a year. Leaving would deprive them of credits (usually), knowledge of the scheme and technique they learned, comfort, likely proximity to home for many recruits, relationships with people at PSU whether friends or girlfriends, a good degree, choice of education, the major of choice (for some), and the list just goes on. Players that aren't established would likely have little to no chance to get an equal scholarship opportunity, many having to go to MAC or lower division schools. The harm to the players would be IMMENSE. It would serve no purpose. And what about the new coaching staff to boot? Some of these guys just came from other schools or the NFL for the chance to not have a job for something they literally had nothing to do with at all? That makes sense. Did Tressel get fired for his role? Yes, but he was the cause. Same for a guy like Fisher. This would be similar to Tommy Amaker getting fired because a penalty was handed out 10 years later.
3. Lastly, stop trying to say tattoos and houses didn't effect the play on the field any more than covering up a 15 year old non-football player related scandal. That's just silly. For starters, the coaches at those schools would have (and likely did) cover up evidence of these things to keep their best players eligible (Pryor being the perfect example). This won games. The promise of these extra benefits brought in players. This won games. The argument that revealing a sex scandal helped recruiting doesn't hold much water when the new coach has already recruited a top 10-15ish class thus far. Even if it did matter, we're comparing affirmative acts relating to actual players (like giving out money) to omissions relating to a former coach and non-players. Not even remotely similar.
P.S. About SMU. Did players get punished there for the acts of others? Yes. But let's be honest -- the players, coaches, fans, and even opposing fans ALL KNEW what was going on there. It was plain as day. It's not like their recruits were shocked it happened. Even those guys who didn't receive benefits would be idiots to not know it. How could a PSU player have known this or had any responsibility for this in any possible way? They wouldn't.
IMO if they were hiding this, what else were they hiding or doing. One year would be an easy ban.. I think they should give up 1 game for every child, and then donate the money they would have gotten to the victim.
How are they gonna donate the money they would have gotten, if they dont play the game and get the money?
And maybe they were hiding other things, maybe they werent. You cant assume just because they hid one thing, that they were hiding a bunch of other things too.
1) How in the world does suspending the football team send a message to anybody? Who would receive this message that hasn't already?
The culture of dogmatic reverence at PSU provided an atmosphere for which these atrocities could go on with impunity. This punishment would destroy that culture at PSU. It sends a message to the PSU community and to every other football/basketball factory in the NCAA. Much of the PSU community hasn't recieved the message. In addition, the consequences clearly weren't enough for the 5 persons involved, primarily b/c need for program success trumped the potential consequences. If staying silent has consequences for the program you are trying to protect, then perhaps their decision making process would have been different.
2) I'm not goning to address most of this b/c A) I don't give a shit about any of the current players/staff/fans of PSU, and B) I don't think they should be a serious consideration. I'll only address 2 points:
The harm to the players would be IMMENSE. Replace harm with inconvienence.
Also, no one is gaurenteed the right to be a D-1 football players at PSU. It's a privledge. I'm OK with temporarily suspending a privledge exclusive to 100-150 already extrememly provledged individuals.
3) OSU covered up benefits to the program in order to protect the program. PSU covered up what was a huge issue that would certainly negatively affect the program in order to protect the program.
PS: according to many, a lot of people thought Sandusky had an inappropriate relationship with children. There were a lot of people, including that janitor who were not all that surprized that Sandusky was diddling little boys.
not the entire community. Just many in the AD.
I would would certainly punish the community by restricting some privleges (not unalienable rights) that contributed to or enabled or sustained the worng doing. It's not unlike a cult leader in Utah or somewhere who sanctions or conseals murders/molestations while the community surronding him/her provides a culture of (unknowing) support. Suppose the cult benefitted from the financial gains of a casio or something. Would I be OK with the casino operations being suspended temporarily? You bet.
Who gave Paterno his power? The PSU community. He had the power to tell the president, the AD, the VP in charge of campus police to shove it. It they were to defy him, they were toast, and they knew it.
Paterno got his power from his reputation, his wins, the outspoken alumni, the big donors that adored him. He got his power from the very same place RR lost his: the community of the particular program. When was this all released? After he won the game that put his win total past Eddie Robinson. When was he "fired"? After he won the game that put his win total past Eddie Robinson. Why won't they remove the statue? The BoT is afraid of fallout from the PSU community. They (the PSU community) gave Paterno his power and Paterno abused it.
If the fans knew about this at the time, I'm sure they would have been appalled. Yet, there were many PSU faithful that defnded Sandusky until they couldn't anymore. They still defend Paterno and talk about how the Freeh report was poor reporting, there are many holes in the theories, and that everybody is out to get them. They still say Paterno "made a mistake" and that he was bullied by his superiors into not talking to the authorities in 2001. There are some that blame the parents (most were from broken homes) or the kids themselves (they didn't say anything because they got to go to football games and stand on the sidelines for free) for not noticing or speaking up. Yes, the community gave Paterno his power, power to the point that no one could keep him in check.
BTW - I don't think PSU is the only place were this was/is happening.
would be sufficient.
I agree, except they should have to move the statue to the front lobby of the AD for the rest of eternity.
by covering up the scandal, not as much the reputation of the whole school. To them, a lot of their identity was wrapped up in the Joe Paterno, squeaky clean persona. Having the Sandusky truth come out would have (and has) destroyed that. So, to me, this is an argument for levying a stiff penalty that impacts the football program. Otherwise, PSU will just pay some big sums to the vicitms families out of their endowment, and life will go on as before in Happy Valley. A strong message needs to be sent to PSU and all of college football that protecting your football program at the expense of peoples' welfare won't be tolerated. Whether that's a one year ban, two year ban, multi-year bowl ban, or significant scholarship reductions or a combination of things needs to be decided.
Whie this was a cover up to protect the football name and PSU name, it had nothing whatsoever to do with helping PSU win games. It had nothing to do with competitive balance. Nothing to do with current or former players. Therefore the NCAA has little to do with this, and as I've argued, should have little to do IMO. In fact, a recent ESPN story quoted a former NCAA lawyer in compliance who stated that even if the NCAA wanted to do something, there is likely little they can do.
The Clery Act could be the real hammer here and it is a Dept. of Education enforced mandate. It can result in the loss of ANY federal funds by PSU. That includes research grants/awards or even Pell grants and other federal student aid to PSU students.
Talk about trying to recover, imagine having to recruit even general students with the minimal ability to obtain financial aid or graduate stipends.
win games has any relevance. Crimes or moral mis-behavior committed by the football staff or administrators (on behalf of the program) are cause enough to punish the program.
Secondly, one could argue that PSU did gain a competitive advantage by hiding very damaging information and activity, that, if it had become public, would have hurt the program.
Having said that, I don't think a death penalty is likely or justified, but I would like to see all wins vacated for fourteen years (at least on Joe Paterno's record), orders to take down the statue and perhaps even some loss of scholarships.
That's right, logical reasoning is in fact overrated on the internet.
I don't know why all of a sudden people are concerned about innocent players being punished. That's always happened.
Why do people have trouble with the idea that NCAA has never been an organization capable of punishing the guilty? The players just go pro (Pryor) or are long gone by the time the NCAA arrives. The coaches still walk away with their money (Tressel) or find new jobs (Caroll).
The current crop of players does suffer int hat they have to either stick around on a crippled team or transfer (normally without penalty). That is the way it has always been. Except in the rare case when you get some freshman who the NCAA can sanction and he's too young to bolt to the pros.
The PSU of killing off the PSU Athletic Department is to make the statement "When you try to cover up things like to protect your cash cow program, we will find out about it eventually and do what the Romans did to Carthage to your department." It's about setting the precedent and forcing the University to take the economic hit for noncompliance, that is what the NCAA has always done.
We want to walk away with something that results in every AD in America having the local number for child services burned into his brain and mass incentive to expand efforts to insure compliance with reporting policies.
Both NCAA and DOE are really in un-chartered territory here with this issue, and it’s anybody’s guess how far they will go.
Punishing the innocent for crimes of the guilty unfortunately will always occur. PSU will also have to deal with its image, civil lawsuits/awards for quite awhile, and compounded by whatever action the agencies decide is fitting. You feel sorry for the institution, its staff and students. ( I know I do; yet I have family there, including on the current athletic staff.)
But again in this case with PSU and considering how vile and severe the crimes (not violations but actual crimes); “If not now,… When?”