Bob Costas on Meet the Press: 'Death penalty' for PSU football.

You are correct.

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.

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.

Admittedly I haven't read the most recent documents in this case and am not fully up to date but I don't see what the death penalty would solve here. What the death penalty would really hurt would be the current players, students and other athletes who play sports funded by psu football. Also, this is really a legal matter and the focus should be kept on helping the victims and bringing awareness to this crime and crimes like it. Imposing a death penalty on psu would shift that focus to the future of the football program which at the end of the day isn't directly relevant to helping the victims.

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.

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.