That's a majority!
And 100% of the posters on BSD are arguably insane.
went to Penn State, and I just got to see him for the first time in a while the other day. ANGAR is directed at Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and administration. Still believes Joe Pa did nothing wrong, didn't know anything and doesn't think "chasing victories" was ever a motive
I've known the guy for 10 years. I was floored. I had to change the subject.
to me over this, and I have been fairly understanding as far as I'm concerned. It's something in the water.
hasn't spoken to me since I told him that Paterno should be fired over this. He thinks that loyalty to a friend is more important than protecting the kids. He also thinks that Sandusky didn't do it. Sad day...
If Paterno had been 20 years younger, I don't think anyone (outside of a few PSU diehards) would defend him. There's something about blaming the elderly that makes a lot of people uncomfortable.
Elderly who work into their 70s and 80s out of financial need is one thing. Well-off elderly who retire and make room for others, allowing long time assistants/supporters to finally get their day in the sun as head coaches, etc. is also one thing. Rich elderly who zealously hold their job to break win records for themselves, obviously not giving two shits about stepping aside to benefit others even when asked to by the administration, is an entirely different matter. I liked JoPa 20 years ago, but once he reached 70, his failure to retire over those years made it increasingly clear JoPa was about JoPa. Screw that old, selfish codger.
And 50% of my household still harbors dreams of being a professional athlete.
Delusional household is delusional.
the Senior PGA tour. That's my new dream. My wife doesn't seem to share my vision. Somehow, she feels it is unjust I spend all day at the course while she is home with the baby.
Tell her you'll make it up to her by being home on Saturdays in the fall from 12:00 - 3:30, or 3:30 - 7:00, or 8:00 - 11:30. You'll get back to her on which Saturdays are which.
I'm actually surprised only 52% think the penalites were too severe. I'm encouraged by this figure. Looking only at sports blog posts does seem to have skewed my perspective to where I would have guessed a much higher percentage.
But keep in mind, this includes anyone with a connection to PSU, including people who don't follow sports. It's not a survey of self-described PSU football fans.
than I would have predicted and maybe not that far off from what the general public might think. I know many people, myself included, thought the NCAA had no business being involved in the first place and that this was a matter for the civil and criminal courts.
I thought the same thing when I saw the figure. I was honestly expecting something atleast at 65% or higher based on the majority of things i've been seeing PSU fans say.
I would be very interested to see how this compares to what the rest of the country thinks too. I think it would still be a pretty decent difference in the results, but not like I originally would have thought by anymeans.
There went my last lingering desire to visit Pennsylvania.
That's so logical.
Not a single penny of my hard-earned monies will go towards supporting their economy. Hit them in the pocketbook.
The Valley is sad
The foolish Lions feel wronged
I AM SO OUTRAGED
This sounds about right; in fact, it feels a little low. I know there is a contingent of people who think that PSU should be burned to the ground, but I always thought the collateral damage caused by the punishment far outstrip their utility as a deterrent, and that punitive measures were in class to handle the wrongdoers without the bowl bans and massive scholarship reductions included. My guess is that about 52% is a pretty fair estimate of the general pop's view of the issue.
I do suspect that this number would be different if the survey was more focused on knowledgeable sports fans instead of gen pop with ties to PSU, but the results seem reasonable.
The real number, the one that matters more than what the not so fine citizens of Pennsylvania feel about Paterno and the NCAA , is now at 7, the number of players that have left the program with number 8 in the wings. Here is a good synopsis of their current woes:
Some of these players are starters on offense.
I believe the number of decommits is 2 so far, but that number most assuredly will go up. They might be OK this year if their D can hold people to under 7 points a game, but I suspect they are going to be hurting,
One of my neighbors is a die-hard Penn State grad. She is also a mom with a couple of sons and is very equivocal. As I value her friendship, we have agreed to leave the subject alone.
To be fair, kids leaving has less to do with their feelings about the quality of the sanctions placed on PSU as much as the reality that if they want to play in a bowl game, they might as well leave. I wholly suspect that if PSU had not been banned from bowl games and lost dozens of scholarships, many of these kids would have stuck around.
If the shoe was on the other foot, I think 52% of Michigan households would think the sanctions were too severe.
Well, I take that back. All the MSU fans would say it wasn't severe enough because they didn't nuke Ann Arbor.
If they polled MIchigan fans, 52% would say it was too severe.
EDIT - anyone else notice that it's a PSU day on BTN? They aren't showing any football games during the day. There's one at 2am and one at 4am. Wonder when they'll show another PSU football game in broad daylight.
But this isn't a poll of PSU fans; it's a poll of people with a connection to PSU. That does not necessarily mean they all follow the football program.
I definitely don't think 52% of Michigan households would protest NCAA sanctions. There are plenty of Michigan grads who don't care about college sports, and some want them to be downsized.
I think you'd be surprised. I'm sure there are plenty of PSU grads that couldn't care less about college athletics.
I've maintained all along that many people are being too harsh in their judgment of PSU fans and such. I don't approve of their behavior, but I think the reaction would be similar from most fanbases. Maybe not as severe, but a significant portion of Michigan fans would be reacting in a similar way.
I agree that there are probably a lot of PSU households that don't care for sports. That's why I don't find the 52% figure to be "low."
I don't think it would be as high for Michigan in any event. Not that many Michigan grads protested the Ed Martin sanctions. We are able to keep these things in perspective a little better.
I don't understand the need to defend the PSU community. This is a community that so harassed Victim #1 for pressing charges against Jerry Sandusky that he went into witness protection I can't imagine that happening here.
The Ed Martin scandal didn't involve a coaching legend that was responsible for about 90% of our tradition in that sport.
Fine, but do you really think that if Michigan had its own Sandusky scandal, that one of the victims would be forced into witness protection? This happened just a few months ago, after Sandusky was arrested and Paterno fired - after it was clear Sandusky was a monster. Would Michigan fans literally blame a rape victim and threaten his life?
That story destroyed any sympathy I had for PSU.
I have no idea if that would happen. Is it likely it would happen? Probably not. But I have no doubt there'd be a few idiots that would send threats.
And a couple of those incidents in the article involved high schoolers. When I go to judge a fanbase, I definitely look at what the high school fans are doing to justify my view of the whole. It's too bad MrMario86 or whatever his name is represents mgoblog. The reputation of the blog is ruined!
I think it's a little arrogant to assume that nothing similar could happen in Ann Arbor or some Michigan fans wouldn't take things too far.
Every time the Fab Five comes up, how many people say "re-raise the banners, welcome them back with open arms, that was a big part of our history, they did what anyone would do!"? And that's 20 years later, with most of the sting of the sanctions gone now, not nearly as fresh. Now saying what the basketball got in trouble for isn't nearly as bad as what went down at Penn State goes without saying. But the sanctions for each weren't really comparable either. Just because we mucked up the program for a decade longer than it had to be doesn't mean it had to be that way.
There's a big line between "no we shouldn't have gotten any punishment" to "TOO severe." Anytime you get the worst sanctions probably ever you're going to think you were hit too hard and are being made an example of. Doesn't mean you think you should have gotten off scott free. Just that It shouldn't have been THAT harsh.
I don't necessarily agree, but I can guess a lot of Michigan fans would think it's too severe if we were hit with it too.
There is some interesting stuff in the full results.
For all adults, the margin between those who felt the sanctions were appropriate versus those who felt they were too severe slims considerably by the time you get to the 18-34 year olds - to the tune of a 35% versus 38%, with only a slight lean towards "too severe". Older groupings leaned far more towards "too severe". Those with a degree leaned in favor of "appropriate" by a margin of 4%, whereas those with no degree went for "too severe" by 15%.
Really though, now that things like Paterno's dismissal, Sandusky's trial, the Freeh Report and the sanctions from the NCAA have had a second to settle, the 52% figure is probably a pretty realistic one, I would imagine.
100% of the nation thinks the Paterno family needs to shut their pie holes.
Expected a way higher number. Just about any controversial thing, there are going to be partisans that support it no matter what, and will not change their view to reflect reality. Case in point, I imagine if you polled the "Gang of 88" after it was clear that the Duke lacrosse players were innoccent, they would still feel that they were guilty. That a slight majority are angry is a good sign, I imagine once tempers cool and passions fade, people will realize that the punishment was, while unpredecent, appropriate.
I find it interesting that just about every answer, whether about the NCAA sanctions or the importance of athletics at major universities, had the women and men basically within the margin of error of each other. If someone had made me guess, I would not have predicted that.
I expected this number to be higher. Of course, PSU households is different than PSU fanatics. It would be interesting to see a split between PSU households who don't follow football vs. PSU households who are emotionally and financially invested in the football team. I expect the PSU families with weaker ties to the university and the football program are many of the voters who thought the penalties were appropriate. Just looking at PSU fans I would expect the number of those who think the sanctions are too severe to be higher than 52%.
72% of all people know that.
I expected it to be a little higher. If something anywhere near the magnitude of what happened at PSU happened here, Michigan fans would be very quick to defend their school. It is not surprising to see that over 50% of PSU households feel the punishments were too severe.
I took a poll on that.
I'm not a PSU fan (obviously) but I think the penalties were too severe. The crimes comitted were horrifying (again, obviously) but I don't think that the football program should have been crushed as it was, especially in such a capricious manner (no extensive formal investigation by the NCAA, they just rolled with the Freeh report and did so VERY quickly).
USC, OSU, North Carolina, et. al. deserved far worse than what they got because they were actually cheating to improve their fortunes on the field. The crimes that happened at PSU were not really of any benefit to the program, until the coverup, which staved off the negative publicity that might/probably would have affected recruiting for a while.
Just my $0.02. Flame away!
That's one way of looking at it. The other is that what went on at those schools was essentially victimless crimes, while at least 10 children were raped by Sandusky, and they were covered up because of the football program. If he weren't connected to football, he'd have almost certainly been brought to justice a decade ago. When you think of it that way, it's hard to feel too sympathetic to PSU football. If these sanctions help PSU regain its institutional priorities, they're well worth it.
I completely understand that line of reasoning, but IMO the NCAA's real duty as far as college football is concerned is to attempt to maintain the integrity of athletic competition not punish a school because they had a pedophile running loose.
Teams who cheat to win championships (USC - Reggie Bush, OSU -Clarett, Smith and Pryor Auburn - Cam Newton (yeah he took the money)) should be the NCAA's focus. Punishing criminals is the province of the justice system not the NCAA.
I don't think that's all it needs to do. It also needs to do what it can to keep institutional priorities in line, and make sure that the general public still sees these guys as students first. It's a safe bet that most university presidents care more about that than about competitive advantages. People in academia, by and large, are embarassed by the college sports culture and want it to be dropped down a peg. The NCAA has to find a way to reconcile big-time sports and schools' academic mission. There's a reason they keep running those "Most of us will go pro in something other than sports" ads.
Also, if we're being honest, we know that star athletes get free stuff at pretty much every school. It's only "bad" because it happens to be against the rules. A lot of people are even sympathetic to athletes getting extra benefits because they feel they're not being properly compensated in the first place. No one is sympathetic to what went on at PSU. It's a lot easier to stomach a poor athlete getting free rent than it is to tolerate a program letting boys get raped in its facilities.
I think that the reason the NCAA acted as decisively and swiftly as they did is because they recognized that this is probably one of the worst evils perpetrated, way moreso than cheaters at other schools.
Rest assured, the courts are involved too.
I myself wondered if the NCAA should be involved, but when it was discovered that the high-powered people within the football program and the university engaged in an active cover up of the situation, well, I completely understand why the football program should be punished.
And I feel the NCAA got it right. In a way, they are punishing current student athletes with no connection to Sandusky or the teams involved during the rapes, however, given the NCAA's generous transfer rules, they have a way out. This, I feel, is the best balance, and a rational, logical place to meet in the middle.
Edit: In a way, isn't this a lack of institutional control? It's not even a "lack of" per se, it was just totally unregulated and uncontrolled, then actively covered up. It spoke volumes as to the true culture of the football program at PSU. Football is not larger than the welfare of children.
Having the university president effectively answer to the football coach is certainly a loss of institutional control, and I think that was mentioned in the Freeh report.
I believe that the NCAA actually did PSU a favor by coming to a decision as quickly as it did. A long, drawn-out investigation (ala UM basketball) may have been much more damaging to the program.
Don't forget, Penn State had an option that they chose not to exercise. They agreed to go along with the NCAA penalties in lieu of a protracted investigation and the potential death penalty for up to four years.
I find their chosing to accept a significant penalty now in lieu of a lengthy investigation very telling. If anyone at PSU believed that further investigation would have shown a substantially diminished picture re the loss of institutional control, they might have gambled on a different outcome.
There are a couple more parties under indictment and awaiting trial, and possibly one more waiting to hear from a grand jury. My guess is that someone is going to plea bargain and the information gleaned may add more fuel to the fire if that is possible. It is pure speculation, but there may be more details forthcoming that were not included in the Freeh report which noted that several key figures were never interviewed.
... it's that low...
Of my unofficial poll of 5 non-PSU grads it's 100% too severe (I'm in Texas so about as far away from caring about the B1G as possible).
and I think the penalties were pretty severe. 60 mill in financial penalties, 10 scholarship reduction for 4 year and 4 year bowl ban and all wins since 98 being tossed out is pretty damn severe given what we have seen from the NCAA over the past many years.
Now, what Sandusky did was by far the worst thing I have ever heard about in college football, I'm just not convinced the football program and university should suffer that much because of the actions of a few. The courts will hold the appropriate people accountable for their criminal actions so when you take that into account and add the NCAA penalties...I don't know how people could argue they weren't severe enough. Not sure you can really get TOO severe given what happened, but saying they're not severe enough is a bit weird IMHE.
They got hammered for an offense that had nothing to do with any players when other programs can admit to improper benefits that led to a competitive advantage and end up with nothing more than a stern warning.
I don't feel sorry for them, per se, but I don't think that there is a fan base for a big time program, including our own, that would be reacting any differently.
you can stretch out an argument that covering up was a competitive advantage. If one recruit who would have otherwise not committed had the scandal broken (granted, the fall out would have not been as great, JoePa would have been hailed as a hero for turning in a child molestor etc, but it's plausible that they could have lost a few guys over it) did commit--well I think that's a competitive advantage.