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

Tat gate was a legal issue prior to the NCAA getting involved. The FBI was investigating the tattoo parlor. Let's see, coach covers up a free tattoo, coach covers up the rape of 10+ children. Tattgate gets a bowl ban and 3 years probation, and the NCAA ignores the lack of institutional control a PSU? The NCAA has backed itself into a corner on this one. They are slow to react. They will come out with a ruling in December after the regular season is done. I am not sure what they will do, but if they go by their own definition, this is lack of institutional control in the worst possible case. If they still use the death penalty, then my guess this would be the appropriate time to use it.

...might be more effective in sending a message to other schoolsand deterring similar coverups than just a financial penalty.  Whether it's to buy out a contract, build a new facility, or cover up some sin, it seems that major football programs don't have that much difficulty finding someone to write a check.

But it's hard to market and monetize a football team that doesn't exist.

It's not about the money.  Leave that to the lawyers.  This is about doing the right thing.

I think the 1 year ban is more an ethical argument than a punative one. 

Personally if this does come to pass, I think state & the ncaa should allow the athletes a pentalty free transfer or the option to stay and wait out the year for free (paid through their endowment)

.. that is, if any of their endowment is left after they get sued into the stoneage.

No because they all got to transfer on the spot, or stay and enjoy their free education. And their eligibility remains intact.

were actively involved in the cheating process itself by being on payroll.

...is how adamant Bobby Bowden is about aggressive penalties for the program.  He's an individual who would do well to stay out of this discussion.

Whatd they do for teams with SMU? Theyd obviously figure something out.

That's really the nagging question?

Thank you TSS. I don't see how this is so difficult for some people to see.

No. By most accounts, Paterno and Sandusky did not like each other much. This was all about the football program.

Remember that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were apparently building some sort of case to take to the authorities in  2001, but it was after a conversation with  Paterno that Curley claimed to be "uncomfortable with the next steps", so nothing was done.

Yes, technically they were his superiors, but Curley was essentially hand-picked to be the AD by Paterno when they joined the Big Ten, and Spanier probably wanted to avoid the public  relations nightmare that they are now experiencing. Even a janitor was afraid of reporting what he saw because he feared for his job - it is very clear now that the program was thought to be  untouchable even by the university itself and to say otherwise would mean your end, not  the program. When there is such a culture of fear and no one feels empowered to use good judgment, then something's - no, someone's - shadow looms far too large. Things are not in control at this point. 

This is a school where success was valued more than the individual, where the priorities were completely opposite of what they should have been. It was about protecting the success of the program and avoiding the negative publicity - there is no other feasible explanation for why a former DC with emeritus status and access to facilities should be handled almost politely despite  his crimes and no thought was given to the lives he had essentially destroyed.

I do tend to agree with some people here - this is about resetting priorities, and the only real way to do this in the case of Penn State may be to remove - for a time - the conflicting priority. It seems to me that, so long as there is continuity in the presence  of the program, then there will always be a connection to, well, this. A clean start after a break may serve the school  better.  

Death penalty is not warranted in my opinion. That, like Wolverine pointed out would drastically effect hundreds of people who had no involvement in this matter and frankly knew nothing of it.

Rule. We don't speculate or take glee in situations like this. We shouldn't be thinking about our gain from someone else's horrible situation.

The NCAA is not a "governmental body". It's a voluntary association of colleges and universities with certain requirements for membership. The NCAA giving Penn State the death penalty is more analogous to a fraternity's home office revoking a charter than it is to the IRS seizing property. The ability to use coercive force is a huge distinction that isn't at play here.