The reason sanctions SHOULD hurt programs after the involved parties are gone.
Allow me to vent for a moment. I apologize if I am beating a dead horse or suddenly fed up with an old topic. However, I have listen to one too many people aggue that sanctions against programs are ridiculous because they punish kids and coaches who had nothing to do with the original activities. I have heard OSU, PSU, USC, and even us use that argument (mostly in regards to bball).
Programs are a product of legacies, short term or long, and anyone who disagrees is fooling themselves. When a program like OSU football, or UofM baseketball has a successfull run, it allows them to increase donations from the alumni, and attract a higher caliber of recruits.
Nobody remembers that wins have been vacated from that legacy. Lane Kiffin is recruiting kids now by telling them about all of the success USC has had over the past 15 years. OSU is marketing their success in the Big Ten and BCS through the Tressel years, etc.
Whether they admit it or not, I think many programs would be OK with a scenario where you use shady recruiiting practices to bring in elite talent, and turn a blind eye for a few years while they run roughshod over your campus but succeed on the field to the tune of national coverage and championships, if you knew you would only be punished later with vacated wins and show cause labels on fired coaches. By the time that happens, you will have a name to sell, more elite kids coming in, and you can play the "this had nothing to do with the kids who are here now" card.
You punish the current program because it is directly benefitting from the success had via improper methods. Period. If I hear another OSU fan, of which I know too many, poo poo about how badly OSU is being treated for a couple of kids that aren't even there anymore selling their own stuff for tats I am going to explode. Players running the show at OSU allowed them to continue to attract other talented kids who prefered the idea of less oversight to what they would find at schools playing by the rules. Those players allowed OSU to play on National TV in BCS bowl games and build the brand they are now selling. They got off easy.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:23 PM ^
This is about obsolete and ridiculously subjective rules by the NCAA infractions committee. Reggie Bush's greedy stepfather accepts a house from an agent and USC gets hammered. What has Miami suffered in light of all the Nevin Shapiro shenanigans? Or Oregon for hiring a pro scouting service to provide them illegal background info on recruits? That's not even about money, that's about something worse - cheating - and they get 1 scholly and probation. Who's making up these rules as they go along in the Infractions office??
More than anything it comes down to whether the NCAA infractions committee likes the school/A.D. or not. That more than anything determines the severity of the penalty. Subjectivity over objectivity.
We go to college for one reason, to learn how to make a living. And we punish athletes for being capitalists?? They're talking about suspending Manziel because he signed autographs? Damn, that opportunity is the American dream! Capitalizing on your fame! It's so dumb and really needs to be changed.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:29 PM ^
August 16th, 2013 at 5:37 PM ^
Mike Garrett was a buffoon. His response to the sanctions was to stand before a San Francisco alumni club and say the NCAA is jealous of their success.
USC was fortunate to convince Pat Haden to take the job.
Michigan is fortunate to have a super successful and bright businessman as their AD. Ex-jocks like Garrett can ruin a program. Haden, obviously, is an ex-jock but was a successful lawyer for years before taking the AD gig.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:54 PM ^
There rarely seems to be any rhyme or reason as to how the ncaa doles out punishment. Like you mention with USC, it's one players step father accepting benefits from an agent. Supposedly Carroll and anyone else on the staff didn't know this was going on and USC gets some pretty stiff penalties.
OSU has a coach covering up rules infractions by a handful of players and they get a slap on the wrist compared to USC.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:42 PM ^
the trouble at some point directly involves players, either in recruiting or in retaining them. Whether it's financial shenanigans or academic fraud or recruiting shadiness, it's very easy for me to make the argument that those players wholly or in part benefit from the unethical actions of the programs involved. If a grade is changed from a failing E to a passing C-, thereby maintaining eligibility, both the program and the player derive direct or indirect benefit from that fraud, and the benefits are intentional. They're not accidental byproducts.
Where the PSU situation is different is that the crimes at the heart of the matter—Sandusky's horrific abuse, and then the subsequent coverup—had nothing to do whatsoever with the active Penn State football program. None of the players benefited in any way shape or form, directly or indirectly, from what Sandusky was doing, nor was there any intended benefit to the program. The coverup was carried out to protect Paterno and the upper PSU administration from the consequences of their mismanagement of the situation—a situation that had literally nothing to do with the active PSU football program in any meaningful way, other than the fact that the aging, incompetent, and possibly senile Joe Paterno was still nominally in charge of the football program.
I'm not saying that the sanctions were unwarranted or were too harsh; I think given the gravity of what occurred, they are entirely justified, and PSU fans who are complaining are guilty of the worst sort of hypocrisy. However, to go much beyond them into the territory that some are advocating is unjustifiable overkill, IMHO. The only way I could be convinced that a death-penalty like punishment would be warranted would be if players were aware of what Sandusky was doing, and/or actively took part in covering it up. Unless I'm mistaken, there's no evidence of that.
August 16th, 2013 at 5:51 PM ^
A hit to Paterno in, say, 2001 would have trickled down to his players then just as it did when the story finally broke. A player who played in 2009, for example, was enjoying the fruits of being part of a program that existed at the heights it did because people refused to draw attention to Sandusky. The given player didn't know that this was the case, I grant, but he did benefit from it.
August 16th, 2013 at 6:04 PM ^
So did the any other athlete that played in a facility paid for by the football teams success. I suggest we strip their 3 straight national titles in wrestling. While we are at it, we should kill their hockey team before it gets off the ground. How was all that paid for? You start a very slippery slope when you start punishing anyone that benefited from a college football teams success.
August 16th, 2013 at 6:20 PM ^
I don't disagree in spirit, but I'd counter that Sandusky's continued employment at PSU despite what is now clear evidence of wrong-doing during his tenure benefitted the school in the sense that a good DC was allowed to keep his job and help the team win. It's a bit estoric in some respects, but it is undeniable that Jerry Sandusky was a good DC for 20+ years. I'm guessing PSU could have found a suitable replacement eventually, but without Sandusky at the helm some of those defenses likely would have been worse, recruiting could have suffered, etc. Perhaps the players didn't benefit from his actions, but PSU apparently knew about Sandusky's activities well before he left. People weighed these allegations against his job performance and seemingly decided they weren't worth investigating properly. So to paint the school as an unknowing player in that fiasco doesn't feel true to me.
August 16th, 2013 at 6:08 PM ^
If you know that there will be real consequences for violating rules and you know a school recruiting you is a shady operator, maybe just maybe you will think twice about committing there. And if you do, you only have yourself to blame for staying home on the holidays, etc.
August 16th, 2013 at 9:26 PM ^
Says the person who is a fan with the biggest stadium. But honestly why should a person not get paid as much as they are worth to another person willing to pay them? I understand it is sort of undermining my favorite pass time but how is the NCAA not collusion? All the people who would other wise have to pay get together and say it is against our rules to pay and no one else can pay you either. I am not saying it wouldn't ruin football. I am saying how can they get away with it?
August 17th, 2013 at 9:32 AM ^
The NCAA isn't the only option for these kids. If they want to get paid for playing football, they can join a semi-pro league. That's the free-market alternative to college. The NCAA is collusion as much as any other club or frat or association is collusion: if you have rules, that's collusion.
Now, good high school football players may prefer to go to college, where they get an education via a scholarship worth more than the average semi-pro player's salary, get much better coaching, training tables, tutors, etc. I don't know why it bothers some people so much that the college choice is the better choice for the vast majority of high school graduates that they want to destroy the college system, but not even they can deny that the high school grad does have choices. Even if some of those choices are obviously poor.
August 16th, 2013 at 9:35 PM ^
All the players who are being punished had a chance to get out. All the players who came after have had the chance to go somewere else. Hard to feel sorry for them.
August 16th, 2013 at 10:01 PM ^
though I believe my logic is a bit more basic. Forget about the NCAA and the whole amateurism hypocrisy thing - it really has nothing to do with that. It’s quite simply the fact that there will always be innocent people affected when others are fairly punished. If a convicted felon has a large family should he/she receive a more lenient sentence than someone with no family? When a company gets caught breaking the law should we refrain from severe fines as it will affect the company’s profitability and thus hurt the employees? If we follow this logic, then what type of deterrent for future misdeeds is there? In the very specific case of college sports, I think it is pretty safe to say that without punishment going to the University (which affects the innocent current athletes) there would be little if any deterrent to breaking the rules.
August 17th, 2013 at 7:42 AM ^
Remember when UMDad thought Tate would be a better quarterback than Denard because he was white? That was awesome.
August 17th, 2013 at 11:37 AM ^
August 17th, 2013 at 9:27 AM ^
If it's a coaches only issue you just take money away from them. No scholarship penalties, no bowl bans. NCAA just takes 50% of the revenue from the sporting activity away from the school and half of the coach's salary for whatever amount of years and then cap the salary for the head coach for whatever amount of time since the current one will likely be fired.
Sanctions should hurt programs after involved parties are gone because the involved parties are hardly ever all gone. However, I hate the idea that a 20 year old football player 2 years into his education gets punished by never getting to a bowl game again for absolutely nothing that remotely involved him.
August 17th, 2013 at 11:14 AM ^
I think the PSU penalty was over the top. We didn't burn down the BBC for their coverup and churches still stand after those coverups. We have a criminal system for criminal offenses for a reason.