What should the Big Ten do with PSU?
There has been plenty of talk about what legal actions are being taken and what the NCAA should do about Penn State, but I haven't heard much about what we in the Big Ten community think our conference should do to handle the situation.
I personally think that the Big Ten should give PSU the boot. Let them go crawling to the ACC or Big East or become independent, don't care just cut them loose. Replacing them might not be easy, but the Big Ten is supposed to stand for excellence and even a Rutgers or Maryland looks better right now from my perspective. Nebraska losing its status among the AAU was enough to question their fitness. This type of thing being allowed to happen at PSU surely is 100x more damning and harmful to the Big Ten's reputation.
Back when this whole Sandusky story broke, the Big Ten stated that they would have their own say beyond what the NCAA or legal system would do. What do you all think the Big Ten should do?
Edit: Full disclosure - I live in Pennsylvania currently and there are a lot of Penn State grads and just casual fans that I deal with every day. Some of them are willing to confront this issue, but it seems that most of them are just waiting it out until they can get their football so that is can all just blow over. If the Big Ten just shrugs it off and basically says that things are just the same, just cough up some money PSU, nothing to see here, move along everyone, what does that say about it as an institutuion?
No. The NFL has an age limit because there are legitimate fears of putting a 19 or 20 year old kid out on the gridiron to play a highly physical, aggressive contact sport with adults that range to almost twice his age at a point when his body is still rapidly maturing. While basketball is a sport where physical maturity at age 18 or 19 is manageable within the professional game, football is not.
Thus, the league has taken measures to ensure a student-athlete has to wait three years after his high school graduating class to attempt to play in the NFL. He can spend those years working in a mine for all they care, he just can't declare for the draft.
And if he is working in a mine just how is he supposed to 'showcase' his talents for the nfl?
I messed up earlier and said illegal, my bad, you are correct in your explanation, the problem is that realistically the only way to get drafted or picked up by an NFL team is by going to a university or college.
Right or wrong, the colleges profit millions of dollars on labor that is unpaid. And before you get to going with the free college tuition, what value is a degree that usually amounts to college football 101? And before you get to going with the student athletes have the opportunity to make something of their free class, there are countless examples of players being encouraged to take a 'lighter' load that is more feasible with their heavy workload of required and not-explicitly-stated-but-expected workload of being a college football player.
I know that slavery is hyperbole but identured servitude is pretty effective if you ask me.
jdon
Being encouraged to take lighter class load =/= being forced. Any athlete on scholarship is free to have the same academic opportunities as any other student. If playing football for 'free' falls under what you call unpaid labor or slavery, you can categorize high school football in the same way. After all, some high schools make big money on their football programs. Free the kids!
"Were my vote of any merit I would kick Penn State out and warn OSU that they are next: college football is one small part of what the Big Ten represents. And Penn State, at the leadership level, failed completely."
So, I was supposed to extract that "OSU places wins over integrity" from that? Yes, attack my reading comprehension because I'm not a mind reader. Maybe you should learn to elaborate instead of giving people the chance to interpret for themselves what your vague statement is trying to say.
As for your hyperbole of college football equals slavery/indentured servitude. As a black man, I take great offense anyone comparing anything to salvery, especially when it's as off base as what you've compared it to in this situation. Even you comparing it to indentured servitude is way off because you forgot one thing: Almost everyone that wants to become a professional in almost any field has to atleast show an attempt at going to college. So by default, almost everyone else serves some sort "indentured servitude" before they can pursue a professional career. Why should athletes be any different? There's a difference between having to do something for no reason against your free will, and having to go do something where the primary goal is to better prepare you for what's ahead in what you've decided is the route you want to go. Your analogies, as well as your attitude when being criticized on this topic, are flawed and short sighted.
I mean it is actually illegal to go pro: you have to play for a college).This is not true. There is no requirement to attend a college, and the age restriction (three years after one's HS class has graduated) applies only to the NFL. You can play Canadian football or Arena League out of high school.
As someone who comes onto a college football site, pretty much declaring you have a big interest in it, and probably supports college football in other ways, does that mean you're pro-"slavery"? You might not be a slaveholder, but you're fighting the civil war for the South. If you really feel that way, you probably shouldn't watch or post or support college football anymore. Because to support something that could fairly be compared to indentured servitude is pretty wrong.
What is wrong with this site timing out today??
NCAA sanctions are appropriate where an institution gains an advantage over its competitors through some type of misconduct. What competitive advantage did Penn State's football program gain by covering up Sandusky that would warrant drastic punishment?
I saw someone else write about this and I will just paraphrase: Basically the advantage they gained was that by not reporting or by covering up Sandusky the team failed to recieve any negative consequences at the time of the action. In fact, the moment Paterno et. al. failed to follow up begins the moment they gain the advantage of having Paterno as a coach when he should have been fired for not following up.... OR something like that.
I agree with that line of thinking; they did gain an illegal advantage by not suffering and honest disadvantage...
jdon
Big Ten is first and foremost an academic conference. NCAA is an athletics association. The question is about what an esteemed group of academic heavyweight universities should do when one of their members is found to be pulling shit like this.
The Big Ten is an athletics conference and nothing more.
The CIC (Committee on Institutional Cooperation) is the academic "conference" and also includes UChicago.
Booting Penn State from the CIC is much more plausible in this situation, but that's still basically unrelated. You'd be detonating most of their research budget and totally sink them as a fairly high-ranked university because of the actions of a few people. Who actually gets punished by this? Only the people who weren't involved. You seem far more worried about appearances than what justice entails.
The criminal justice system should determine the punishment of the perpetrators; the players and students had nothing to do with any of this.
Back when this story first broke in late October/early November, I wanted to boot Penn State and take Mizzou, since they were about to switch to the SEC, but clearly wanted in the B1G. I don't think the NCAA should levy any punishment on Penn State, in terms of forfeiting, bans, scholarship loss, etc, but I thought we should have kicked them out of the conference. Their image will be tarnished for a decade at least, and there will be guilt by association for everyone else.
The Big Ten waits until the NCAA makes their decision and if the NCAA doesn't kill Penn St.'s program, the Big Ten should kick Penn St. out.
The second option involves the Big Ten acting before the NCAA and kicking Penn St. out. I prefer this option as it shows the Big Ten as being proacitve and intolerant of such actions that took place at Penn St..
The Big Ten should do nothing.
This was the act of individuals, not an institution. Even if those individuals are highly placed at an institution, they are not the institution. The institution is the students, teachers, alumni, and yes, the administrators, not just these 4 people.
The legal system is equipped to deal out punishment to individuals, the Big Ten is not. And the legal system can deal out far harsher punishment than the Big Ten can. So what possible reason is there to involve the Big Ten?
I do not think that the argument of damage to the reputation of the Big Ten is a credible one. I do not think that anyone truly believes the Big Ten is in any way damaged by its association with Penn State- I am sure people with an axe to grind will make that claim, but I have yet to see anything besides empty rhetoric to back that up.
What the Big Ten "punishment" would do is affect a lot of people at Penn State (as well as the other Big Ten institutions) that had absolutely no role in any of this and cause them hardship (perhaps as small as coming from realignment with another conference, but hardship none-the-less) while essentially causing no further punishment to those responsible -who have either died, or have been or will be fired, or will be in jail, and so will care little about whether or not Penn State is in or out of the Big Ten or under some sort of sanction.
Some may argue that the Big Ten is doing this not to punish but to deter future crime. But we are talking about an institution, not an individual. So deterence really does not apply- and again, the legal system does this better.
Plus, I really do not trust the motivation, lack of self interest, or judgement of those that make up the governing body of the Big Ten.
No, I don't think I did miss the point. If the AD and president did not stand up to Paterno, then they need to be prosecuted as they did not do their jobs or live up to their responsibilities under the law.
You say "the institution" put football ahead of stopping a child rapist, but 99.9% of the "institution" had no idea what was going on. The "institution" did nothing. This was done by individuals. Even the idea that Paterno had too much power was a policy created by individuals who should be (and will be) punished.
To really blame the institution as a whole I think you have to show that there was something in the written bylaws, regulations, or other codes created by the institution meant to govern the behavior of all its individuals that caused the problem. (or something that should have been in those codes that was lacking)
The only argument I see for this being a truly institutional problem is that Penn State was lacking in having a person responsible for monitoring compliance with the Clery Act- there was no one person responsible for making sure that campus crimes were reported publicly as required. Still, that seems a small institutional problem (albeit one that had horrible consequences in this case) and one that has now been rectified. Oh, and this too will be punished in the legal system as the victims file suits against the institution on this basis.
to write pretty much exactly what you said in your last two posts. Well done and well written.
While I think the acts were deplorable, you're exactly right. It's not as if PSU encouraged this behavior in any way. This was an act and serious lack of leadership by 4-5 individuals. Kicking PSU out of the big ten is the stereotypical emotional over-reaction of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.
People just want to distance themselves even further from PSU now due to many reasons. I get it, but I pose the question to anyone who thinks they should be kicked out of the big ten - what will that actually accomplish now? The acts have been done, there's nothing we can do about it except make sure it doesn't happen again. And due to this heightened awareness, I'd actually argue that PSU is the least likely school in the big ten to have this occur again. So, I just don't see how punishing the entire school "makes things right". It doesn't. The whole situation sucks, but I think it's a knee-jerk reaction to the situation and doesn't really help heal the students, fans, alumni of PSU and other conference members. Put yourself in the situation of a student that just enrolled there, or a football player who just got a scholarship offer. The shame of it all is enough, IMO. Don't perpetuate the issue further by more damaging action. If I thought it would do any good, I'd be all for it. But, what's done is done.
I don't know what the NCAA or B1G will do, but I know that they each will leave a large part of its constituents dissatisfied.
There are those that see an entire university responsible for the actions of a few of its leaders. But it is too much to punish the tens of thousands (hundreds of thousands if you count alumni) for the action and sometimes inaction of a few powerful men.
On the other hand . . .
Would someone please slap the PSU fans and alumni who persist in downplaying what happened or continue to defend Joe Paterno? They continue to make the argument for punishing an entire university viable.
Also the people at Penn St. now have done all the right things since charges were filed. Curley and Spanier were quickly broomed, they fired Paterno with it being very controversial at the time. Then they went out and found the toughest most credible guy they could to lead an investigation of themselves, gave him endless resources and made sure it was completely indpendent.
The B1G would suffer the most, losing one it's top three fanbases, lose the conference championship and there is no good candidate to replace them with. While the ACC would gladly take PSU and they would make a lot of geographic sense.
"We aren't Penn State".
What shouldn't they do? [laughs]
Oh, they should do so many things they should never stop.
Oh, the things they should do there, my
stars.
Lisa: You don't know what they should do there, do you?
Homer: Not as such, no.
Some may feel that this is a fascinating issue with many interesting wrinkles. But, JoePa and Sandusky make me angry and emotional, so nothing less than SCORCHED EARTH will do for Penn State. THROW THEM OUT!!! [1]
/s
1: If that ends up happening after a careful review (which, by the way, I think we should patiently await, while we get back to *UMich* sports) I won't be surprised or upset.
Remember when we instituted the "one Sandusky open thread per day" rule back in November, and people were all "c'mon, man, we can be trusted not to go overboard with the threads?"
Oh my God, so many Penn State threads.
...there are 77 other PSU threads that this could have been discussed in.
That is all.
All of the radio shows I listed to during the week are just beating this subject to death and I'm sick of it. I understand it's an important topic and will eventually die, but my god, it's so played. The thing is, once the subject finally stops being beaten to death, once the sentencing happens for Sandusky, the subject will be beaten to death again.
I think its a little extreme to kick them out. But I understand that with a cover-up this big, perhaps no punishment is too severe. I will feel bad for the athletes as they don't deserve this. But then again, when is life ever fair? If they are kicked out of the B1G, I think each student athlete should be left with the option of transferring without losing a year of eligibility. They deserve at least that much.
Death penalty in 2013
Probation in 2014 and 2015.
If they still want to field a football program after that, more power to them.
BTW, everyone is focused on football, but PSU fields other teams. For example, what are you going to do about the B1G Hockey Conference if PSU is kicked out of the conference (unless replaced by ND or one of the New England schools such as BC).
to join the Big East
At the risk of being redundant, I continue to contend that this is a legal issue and thus let the courts deal with it; let the B1G and the NCAA deal with sports-related issues according to their bylaws. If they can and want to punish PSU under some established guideline, then they have that right. But I don't want the court system to get involved in athletic matters and I certainly don't want the college sports conferences to dole out justice for legal violations without related conference rules..
Also at the risk of being redundant, the Big Ten is an academic conference first and foremost. They don't need to and shouldn't deal with this based on sports.