Coercing PSU to drop their program makes no difference wherther its from the givernment or the NCAA. Come on.
I did not make this headline up
Coercing PSU to drop their program makes no difference wherther its from the givernment or the NCAA. Come on.
cannot coerce anyone to do anything. Everything they do is predicated on an institution having a desire to stay in the club. Compare that to the IRS who can forcibly shut an organization down.
If I start a club and say, "you have to have a 3.5 GPA or you're out of the club" I haven't coerced anyone. If a judge makes a plea deal with a college student and says "keep a 3.0 GPA or the Sheriff will use violent Acton to take you to jail", that's coercion. The ability to use force compared to the ability to end a voluntary association is a big distinction.
The fact is the NCAA would choose to make an decision that would have the affect of forcing PSU to end it's football program. Whether or not the organization is voluntary, the NCAA is making the choice to say you no longer meet our requirements. Your distinction is a legal one that has no practical difference. It is still the NCAA making that decision. If PSU made the decision on it's own, I'd disagree for the reasons I listed earlier, but I'd understand and make no other comment.
Of course the community would suffer some degree of collateral damage. But I'm not sure the damage would be as profound or widespread as you say. In a given year, football accounts for only 6-7 days worth of business, the vast majority of which goes to the school. Sure, a small group of vendors and stadium personnel would lose some income. And that does suck for them, no doubt. But I don't think losing football for a year or two would cause much of a dent in the town's economy. PSU gear would still sell. And it's not as if the program would be going away forever.
There's a myth out there that football teams are windfalls for communities. The myth is propagated by team owners/university presidents who want stadiums built with public money. In fact, that's mostly a ruse. Football games make money for football teams.
As for the money that would go to other PSU sports teams, yes, they'd feel a dent. And they should. Their athletic department, as a whole, was deeply corrupt. But football has made so much money for so many years -- as has the school in general -- that PSU could float the other teams for a year or two.
But they lead to some questions.
What if PSU had committed massive NCAA rules violations? Those small businesses and students would be just as innocent and the death penalty would hurt them just as much.
Generally speaking, there is a strong correlation between athletic success and revenue generated both by the schools and surrounding and related businesses. That's especially true for football.
Are there any strong sanctions short of the death penalty that wouldn't cause the same problems that you mentioned, just to a lesser extent? Do you have the same objections to any penalties that would put a program at a competitive disadvantage? Or is there some amount of loss to innocent parties that is acceptable?
Think the death penalty should be in store. I think prosecuting and putting people behind bars along with lawsuit money going to the victims. Don't see the point of punishing the current players who had NOTHING to do with this.
So you are basically saying that 99% of NCAA punishments shouldn't have occurred. The innocent are collateral damage, but there is no other way to deter unwanted behavior for the future. Without punishments, football programs would have no disincentive to cheat.
I think by covering up the crimes that it did help the PSU football program. Why else would Joe PA and the PSU administration cover it up? I guarantee that recruiting would have taken a blow for a couple of years if Sandusky would have been fired instead of allowed to retire with dignity. Also, this would have been a huge off the field distraction for the coaches and players that could have had negative inpact on performance. The argument that the football program shouldn't be punished because the current players had nothing to do with it is silly. What NCAA punishment isn't punishing student athletes for something that they had nothing to do with?
Straight from the NCAA site:
"However, the simple fact is that the punitive nature of NCAA-imposed sanctions make it unavoidable that the penalties imposed on institutions as a result of their involvement in major infractions will have some negative effect on innocent student-athletes."
What I think people are missing here is that they punish at the level of the program, so indeed, even people who had no knowledge previously and no connection to the events will suffer along with the rest. It is not much different when corporations are punished, for example - a few people may go to prison, others will be terminated, but the well-meaning contingent of the workforce has to live with the ruined reputation of that company and the potential loss of business. That's simply how it is, for better or worse.
I disagree with the death penalty for PSU football. As horrible as the crimes perpetrated were, they did not directly involve the football team or provide a competetive advantage for PSU football. The PEOPLE involved are all being punished within the legal structure our society has in place. Anything the NCAA does seems out of place.
Also, if a punishment is given and it is a one year suspension of football, is that an adequate punishment for what occurred? How could the NCAA justify any punishment as being proportional?
It directly involved the FOOTBALL HEAD COACH and Athletic Director, as well as the former defensive coordinator/heir apparent.
Again, they chose FOOTBALL over kids well being. Hence, Penn State should be punished by having it taken away for a while.
I understand your points, but they are being punished more severly in the judicial system than they could in the NCAA, which is an athletics enforecement body. This was a coverup by a few people at the top of the school structure (including the former president Spanier and defacto president Paterno).
I am just trying to have a discussion here and am not flaming. If the NCAA did enforce the death penalty, under what mechanism would they use? LOI? It has been widely speculated that any severe punishment given by the NCAA will be met with a lawsuit from PSU, which they would probably win.
You just said it yourself. The problem is who was responsible for the cover up - the leaders of the university. ALL OF THEM. They represent the entire university bc of the position they are in.
So if Tress was punished in some way by the legal system then OSU shouldn't have gotten any penalties since he acted alone?
If MSC, Dave Brandon, Brady Hoke AND the VP of the University were all involved in a cover up of this magnitude to avoid negative press that would affect the football program, would you say that no NCAA penalties should result?
The greatest scandal in the history of college sports deserves it's harshest penalty.
The idiot people who argue that no competitive advantage was gained drive me insane. If that news came out in 1998 when PSU football was struggling, JoePa might have finally pushed out. Covering it up was self-preservation and to protect the football program. PSU football is PSU, which is also synonymous with Joe Paterno.
Case, most of those NCAA violations occurred while athletes were at the university and may have likely received benefits. No current or past PSU player was involved in the molestation of kids. Several OSU players were involved in tat scandal, therefore, the team should be punished. I see your point but I just think PSU is going to suffer enough already...
Players? You don't think it's much worse when it involves the head coach, former D-Coordinator, President, Vice President and Athletic Director.
How much more representative of PSU can you get?
People you mentioned? If it was discovered that Lloyd paid players 10 years ago to play at Michigan...would it make sense to punish the current team?
Hmmm...let me think about an example to help you understand. Have you ever heard of Chris Webber? Ed Martin?
What happened with those guys?
You mean like when Michigan suspended itself from the postseason tournament in basketball for infractions that started around the time the current players stopped believing girls had cooties? Or when Braxton Miller doesn't go to a bowl game, and all the Tat-Five are gone? Or when USC doesn't get to go to a bowl game because of Reggie Bush's off campus actions five years prior?
Pretty much every NCAA punishment ever is focused on dissuading the program from acting in a similar manner. I've said it on another thread and I'll say it here, the MGoBlog community didn't have a lot of sympathy for Ohio players not caught up in Fine Line Ink and their prospects for bowl games or a full roster of teammates, I'm not getting the sudden change of heart now.
Knew that a penalty was coming...he could have gone elsewhere.
What about USC students? Nobody had any issues/regrets over them getting punished. In fact we've had people say on here that the punishments did nothing
Yes, it would. It's a shame. But the alternative -- not punishing the program -- is worse. Absent the risk of severe penalties, programs would have no reason to play it clean. Logic, friend. Logic.
As heinous and evil as what was done at PSU, nothing that happened was done by players or in an attempt to give Penn State any sort of athletic advantage. Because of this, any suggestion of a death penalty (whether voluntary or not) is absolutely ridiculous. The NCAA or B1G getting involved would be, IMO, something that greatly outsteps their bounds. This is a criminal case involving persons who happened to be a part of either the football program or the university's administration, but is not a football matter. I think the right move is for the NCAA to stay out of the way and to let the justice system handout punishments on an individual level. If they decide to go after the entire university, so be it, but the football program should not be singled out.
Covering it up to avoid negative press, and negative recruiting. Also lets your face of the university stay on board and use his icon status for recruiting.
Penn State should get the death penalty because Joe and the admins chose football over the kids well being. Let the current roster transfer to anywhere they want in D1.
Do you think its unfair that Matt Barkley/Lane Kiffin's USC got punished for what Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll, two guys no where near campus when punishment was given, did?
As heinous and evil as what was done at PSU, nothing that happened was done by players or in an attempt to give Penn State any sort of athletic advantage." - jhender85
I don't know if you could say that the second part of that conjunction is really true.
It has been established well in this thread that players and people with no connection to the crimes will suffer the effects of any punishment simply because of how they are dispensed and the level at which they are dispensed.
As for giving them an athletic advantage, a search of the Division I Handbook doesn't provide a specific remedy, but it could be argued, in my opinion, that preserving the reputation of the program and the iconic status of Joe Paterno by not reporting Sandusky allows them to get a #6 class in 2006 and a #12 class in 2010, and even their otherwise middling classes in the top 50 ranked recruiting classes, and this is just football (even people who didn't play football there, or indeed, any sports, have said that his presence was a huge factor in their decision).
It is hard to deny that, until recent events, the very name of Joe Paterno drew people to Penn State. Those classes - at least some of them - may not have materialized if this had broke in 2001. It's not "impermissible" by the NCAA's figuring in the handbook, but I am pretty sure that obtaining an advantage by not reporting numerous instances of sexual assault of minors didn't occur to them.
Anyway, I can see why people might say this. The mere fact that they chose to preserve the reputation of a football program, a school and Paterno means that the football program is in a materially better state than it would be if the crimes had been reported earlier. I think you could make an argument that this is an "advantage" in the sense that they continued to benefit from Paterno's good name through their inaction.
Just don't think the death penalty is the answer, I assume the death penalty is canceling season...something that I don't think happened at Michigan. If you want to keep PSU out og B1G title and bowl for a year...fine but does that do justice? I don't think so...prosecuting and putting adults who allowed this to happen behind bars is sufficient IMO.
Correct, UM did not have a season canceled. Did I miss the part where Perry Watson was sodomizing kids and Steve Fischer was cool with it?
What's going on? A few thoughtful remarks and (keeping with the spirit of how JoePaGate has been handled so far on MGoBlog) a lot of this (subtracting politics if you can ... I have no allegiance to Tom Tomorrow's stances):
People who are saying that the death penalty is not the answer and either fine or bowl bans are in order are really only looking at things from the football program's point of view. From football program's point of view "punishing innocent kids" makes no sense since they had nothing to do with it and they will be the most affected.
But if you look at it from the institution point of view, the death penalty is the only answer.
Sandusky is someone who could be found almost anywhere. He is a monster that lurks underneath the civilized society. It is completely random whether or not the place you worship, work at, or attend may or may not harbor such monster. This is something that can not be prevented.
What CAN BE prevented is when the monster shows its true colors, you act to make sure that the damage caused by the monster is minimized. This is where PSU failed. But why did it fail?
By all indication it failed because it valued its football program too much. It was willing to ignore the innocent lives of kids in danger because in their own risk analysis, the football program was worth more than the lives of those kids.
THIS is what PSU needs to address. This perverted thinking that any athletic program is worth more than saving innocent kid must held underwater and kept there until any hint of life has disappeared. By ending the football program, you can send the message to the university, its fan base, and everyone else that no athletic program is worth sacrificing innocent kids lives.
This is not something NCAA should prescribe. This is something PSU needs to do for itself, for its own good.
Agreed. I'm not sure this is within the NCAA's purview. But I definitely think PSU would go a long way by simply offering its own version of penance. No football for a year, maybe two. Show the community that you're endeavoring to get your priorities back in order. Wash your hands. Then start over, from the beginning.
That would be a moral thing to do but PSU would never do it.
The fact that they're keeping the JoePa statue up shows they have learned nothing. They will never give themselves any kind of punishment.
I've vacillated on this issue for some time but ultimately I think they probably should get the death penalty for what happened there. Here are the main arguments I've seen come up, and my response to each:
-The legal system will punish the school / people involved harshly enough, anything additional from the NCAA would simply be a mockery of how serious the situation has become.
I simply disagree. I don't think you waive your responsibility to punish an organization simply because others may be punishing them as well. Also, as part of my second point, I actually don't think the legal system is targeting all the correct people.
-The legal system will punish those responsible. Anything the NCAA does now will simply be punishing players and students who have nothing to do with the scandal.
First off, the NCAA punishes primarily those unrelated to scandals all the time as it takes them years and years to sort through cases, and most players and coaches involved have already moved on. Second, and more importantly, I think the current players and students, and alumni fans, are every bit as central to this discussion as those directly involved. It's my belief that the context and the environment created at PSU was one of deification, which allowed Paterno the ability to cover this up. The culture needs to be shredded to pieces, and in my opinion, this would be well served by e.g. a 2-year death penalty. If you think the current program has suffered enough, I hold up two pieces of evidence that it has not: 1) look at the recruiting class. If you saw this without knowledge of the current scandal you might not have any idea anything was wrong and 2) they are keeping the statue up! They still just don't seem to get it. I think the NCAA should do everything in its power to fully destroy the potential for such cultures to crop up in the future.
-This falls outside the rulebook / there is no formal NCAA rule PSU broke.
I'm not an expert in this, and I think it's probably the most valid argument against doing something. My main counterargument would be.. you (NCAA) are not the legal system. Take some leeway and do the right thing, this is clearly and extenuating circumstance.
but all revenue generated at the gate and concessions go the the victims and to victim support groups, etc. don't kill the cash cow, just don't let penn state have the profits.
those are different. either way, i kind of agree, although i think they should do it for ~13 years (since the absurdity went on from 1998 to 2011 or whatever)
Have them make the money but put it to a good use. The whole thing was about money so make the punishment about money. This might be more costly than the death penalty - with the death penalty they don't have to maintain the program, the facilities, etc. With this, they have to still run the program, host the games, travel to the games, etc but every red cent of profit goes to the victims.
If PSU's athletic dept doesn't get the football revenues, it will likely be forced to drop all the non-revenue sports. Or the support would have to come from somewhere else. Don't think this was your intention.
A year off punishes that deserves punishment.
This was not merely an individual crime. It was also an institutional conspiracy and an intentional tort.
The institution deserves to be punished. Suspending play for 1-2 years punishes the institution. There is no other punishment that doesn't affect the players, unfortunately.
The players should be free to transfer.
By lawyers forever. Ceasing play punishes fans and players who were not involved. Some may say as enablers, which, yes, but not actually involved. Also, how many years of football is the right number? Is one year it, how about 5 how about 10?
Well, lawyers don't punish institutions, courts may. But regardless of that fine distinction, if there are large settlements at the cost of PSU, those payouts are ALSO hurting the (otherwise innocent) student body and faculty, by compromising programs that the academic side of the university might need, are they not?
Are you saying the athletic program, led by two of the ringleaders in the cover-up, should have no penalty? I see your point of view, but I don't really believe that would be a good result, or would send the appropriate message.
This whole thing came about as a direct result of covering up to protect PSU football. That is the root of the cause, and as a result kids were raped. There's no way around that.
The institution is to blame, as is the athletic program. And both should be penalized in every possible way.
I don't believe there are any satisfactory alternatives. Just my thinking on this. And I also have to say, I don't like seeing this happen.
I've said this before: the situation is unique, and the extremely serious nature of it certainly justifies a uniquely fashioned penalty from the governing body of collegiate sports.
Did it offer a competitive advantage?
Well, I suppose the answer is going to involve a semantic argument, but I think it should be said that a program's good reputation attracts players, attracts money, and attracts coaches. A program with a bad reputation has more difficulty. So the reputation of a school's program can be said to contribute to a competitive advantage in recruiting.
Is the death penalty appropriate? Well, what else would be appropriate, given the serious nature of the offense? Doing nothing, which is what PSU is hoping for, is clearly inappropriate. A mild penalty like OSU Tatgate penalties, is also not appropriate under these circumstances.
The NCAA has to act, if for no other reason than to maintain its own reputation. There really is no other choice other than to suspend the program for a period of time, and 1-2 years seems about right.
Seeing what PSU is planning re: the Paterno statue gives you an idea of what they'd do about the football program; nothing. I think there will be howls from the rest of the country if nothing happens here.
I'm not sure the B1G should kick PSU out, but if the NCAA doesn't act, it should suspend PSU for a period of time.
All of us except Jay Paterno believe the Freeh report to be the truth. Remember though that Freeh is an independent investigator. No court of law nor an NCAA investigation has determined with finality that the Penn state employees covered up for Sandusky yet. We are getting ahead of ourselves with saying what the NCAA should do to punish Penn state...because they haven't finished their probe.
Dirty recruiting? Miamis scandal? Tattoo gate? Paying cam newtons father? None of these come close to what happened at PSU.
If the NCAA finds these guys guilty, and justifies the power to punish them through the fact they gained an unfair advantage, how can you not give the death penalty and ban all these guys from intercollegiate athletics.
The 2001 football program, to me, absolutely deserved the death penalty for this. If they had been caught actively covering this up I would be leading the charge to blow the program up, but I'm not so sure the 2012 or 2013+ football team deserves the death penalty after the fact. All the guilty parties of this coverup are now well removed from the program, and this punishment is essentially against a completely different program. Some action absolutely should take place, but I believe some other punishment would be more appropriate 12 years later, possibly to the university as a whole because much of this coverup was perpetuated by the higher-ups. Of course no punishment will fit because this is really unprecedented.
It was a continuous coverup that ran 14 years, probably longer. The perjury by their leadership occured during the 2011 season. Sandusky still had access to the program the entire time.
And even after PSU received notification that an indictment was coming, they allowed him to attend the next game in a private box.
This is just an argument that coverups should be punished only if they fail. You are saying that the success of JoPa, Curley, and company in allowing Sandusky 12 more years of rape makes the death penalty, which you would otherwise "be leading the charge for," no longer appropriate.
This is not about punishing person X who is playing/selling goods/going to school a given year because of actions taken by (or potential benefits seen) by person Y who was involved previously, this is about the institution of PSU, which is an entity in and of itself (and modeled in Political Econ as an actor, if you want to get really dork-ish about it).
PSU the INSTITUTION failed in a profound way and as such should be punished AS AN INSTITUTION for transgressions realized by it. Swiss companies post WWII, subsequent governments to ones that run up big WB loans, UM hoops, whatever, all are punished b/c the institution has failed.
With that being said, I think that PSU should be in charge of fixing this (statue, FB penalities, whatever, in house) and be judged for their response. If they want to have no self-imposed penalties and keep JoePa's statue there, fine. However, if they do this, I am convinced that they will go from everyone's second or third favorite big ten team to one of the least favorite (and by far the creepiest seeming, not by their fault, but still) while the 99% of non-PSU people who hire, admit, and or otherwise promote people in the real world will be consciously and/or unconsciously biased against that institution, which will harm it irrevocably more in the long run than a missed FB season.
involved in this cover up certainly had the agenda of the football program saving face and in turn not to hinder recruiting. I really dont know how people can sit there and say this had nothing to do with the football program.
The people on this board do not want to admit it because they have just as much of a stake in PSU football as Joe Paterno did.
If PSU football is suspended the GASP what will that do to the Big Ten? How about revenue?
Worse yet what were to happen if such an action occurs at Michigan? Do you suspend the football program? YES! YES! YES!
I am amazed how many of you have put college football ahead of criminal activity, victims, and everyday life. You have essentially made Joe Paterno right in his actions. You justify the actions of someone to hide criminal activity and if they are able to succeed long enough then there is no consequences for their actions.
Who are Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley if not the face of Penn State?
If you care about healing huge wounds and the victims of the families then as a member of the current administration you should put the program on hiatus. This will demonstrate that you truly do not want to see a program take precidences over crimes commited on campus. This would demonstrate that no football program is beyond the law.
My children were not involved but if I found out that my kid was raped and those involved didnt report it because they were afraid for their precious football program then I would want that program brought to the ground.