Penn State's Path Back to Football Respectability
In the wake of the NCAA’s sanctions against Penn State, many fans are wondering what this means for the future of Nittany Lion football. Many of the forecasts are quite dire: that Penn State is now (effectively) an FCS team; that they’ll go 0-12 for four years; that no one will want to play or coach there; that the program will take a decade or more to recover; or perhaps that it will never recover its former glory.
These predictions are grossly exaggerated, and they ignore many of the basic realities of college football.
Like most of the sport's premier teams, Penn State has huge structural advantages that NCAA sanctions can't erase. Their stadium seats 106,572, more than any in the U.S. except the Big House. The rest of their facilities are top-notch, as you'd expect at such a program.
Penn State fans are loyal, just as Michigan's are. Even in the darkest times, they will continue to fill their stadium; boosters will continue to donate money. Although I pray that such a scandal would never occur at Michigan, if it did I would remain blue, and so, I suspect, would most Michigan fans. Those at Penn State are no less dedicated to their school.
Penn State benefited historically from a geographical accident. In relation to its population, the New England and middle Atlantic states are very densely populated, but they have very few football schools. New York is the third-most most populous state in the country, and it has just one school in a major football conference: Syracuse. New Jersey, the 11th-most populous state, has just one: Rutgers, and they're terrible at football.
The upshot is that there are millions of kids in the Northeastern U.S. for whom Penn State was always the best football school within driving distance, with very little real competition. For kids that cared about playing close to home, which is a lot of them, a Penn State offer always meant that they'd made it. These loyalties, built up over generations, don't just disappear because of Jerry Sandusky.
The NCAA hammered Penn State with two sanctions that affect the ability to field a competitive team: a reduction of 20 scholarships per year for four years; and a post-season ban for the same period. These are substantial penalties, no question about it — the worst the NCAA has ever imposed, aside from the death penalty. But they are not as serious as they first appear.
Penn State can still give out 65 scholarships a year, enough to give a free ride to all of the starters and many of the key backups on the football team. It's true that they can't go bowling for four years, but consider the following:
Many of the schools Penn State is now being compared to (Indiana, the MAC, the FCS), never or hardly ever go to the post-season. But Penn State's facilities are far superior to those schools, and it offers a better education than most of them. Penn State will still play a Big Ten schedule, which means it will see better opponents, and 100 percent of its games will be televised. Many athletes, though admittedly not the elite ones, will consider those advantages sufficiently compelling.
Penn State will still get a few recruits with competing Big Ten offers. How much better is it, really, to go to a school like Purdue, where you go to bowls about half the time (and usually a "meh" bowl at that)? Even kids with top-tier offers will see opportunity in the Penn State depth chart. Many will prefer the chance to be a near-certain starter at Penn State, than going to a bowl-eligible school but spending most of their career as a backup. Given the choice of starting 12 games at Penn State or the potential of sitting on the bench for 13 at (say) Illinois , some will surely choose Penn State.
Penn State has historically scheduled weak OOC opponents (notwithstanding their home & home with Alabama the last two years). In 2014, they'll face the gantlet of Temple, Akron, Rutgers, and UMass. Even with a 20-scholarship handicap, they'll probably be favored in those games. Some of their Big Ten match-ups will be favorable (e.g., Indiana and Minnesota), and some of the others could be a push (e.g., Purdue, Illinois).
Although the sanctions last four years, after the first two they can recruit kids who'll be able to play in bowls by the time they're juniors, the point in their careers when they would have hoped to be starters under the old regime. Instead, by the time the sanctions expire, they'll be juniors with two years of solid playing time behind them, instead of garbage time somewhere else. By the time the sanctions expire, Penn State's starters will have lower recruiting rankings than your typical Penn State squad, but more experience, because most of them will have started as freshmen and sophomores.
Although the next couple of years could be dire, you could easily imagine Penn State fielding a squad of mostly 3* starters in years three and four of the sanctions, with a handful of 4*'s who choose Penn State due to academics, geography, legacy ties, or because they like their chances on such a thin depth chart. Such a team would be easily capable of getting to 5-7 wins with Penn State's fairly soft schedule.
If Bill O'Brien can get Penn State up to around .500 while playing under such severe sanctions, which is very clearly possible, imagine what he can do the instant the sanctions are lifted. By that point, Jerry Sandusky will be five years in the rear view mirror, which is an eternity from the viewpoint of a kid who's deciding where to play football in college. All of Penn State's structural advantages (stadium, facilities, academics, fans, geography) will still be in place.
Of course, Bill O'Brien's ability to lead any program, much less a program with such a cloud hanging over it, are unknown. He has never been a head coach on any level, and he was an offensive coordinator in the NFL for only a short time before Penn State hired him. My point here is not to predict what will happen, but to show how Penn State could quite easily get out from under what appear to be practically nuclear sanctions.
Although Penn State's recovery might not proceed exactly as I've described, the premier programs have historically made their way back to prominence, no matter how severe the sanctions. Penn State's sanctions are unprecedented, but their overwhelming structural advantages will probably work in their favor, once they are again able to recruit a full class.
I think you do a good job summarizing the tangible things Penn State have going for it in its return, but I think there's also a huge psychological element to it. One, the name Penn State will be toxic and synonymous with the scandal for the next two years minimum. People tend not to want to be associated with that. Not saying true believer recruits that come from generations of Penn State fans will be deterred, but a lot of on the fence recruits would be.
Secondly, there's the uncertainty aspect. If it's anything recruits hate, it's uncertainty. Penn State is already in a coaching staff change and there's really no guarantee more changes aren't under way. The HC seems to be locked up by an iron-clad contract, but the assistants may not be. Also, the NCAA is removed pretty much any obstacles to transfering right now. The core of the team may choose to stay and have mildly successful seasons as you say, or there could be a mass exodus that feeds off itself until there's barely anyone left to take the field. There's really no way of knowing at this point. That's a lot of question marks facing a 18 year old trying to decide where to spend the next 4-5 years of his life.
I think your assessment is right long term, that they won't be an SMU, but I think it'll be at least a few years before they rebuild a stable enough foundation to recruit effectively again.
So far the new brass at PSU seem to be taking their medicine like men. If this attitude really takes root, it should make the school much more appealing to recruits and their parents in a few years. In time, PSU might even be seen as a school that indeed runs its program the right way.
You sum up the logical and tangible aspects quite well. However, how deep an impact the scar of being "Pedo U" has on recruits and their families perception of Penn State is yet to be seen. This isn't a case of a school paying for players or having some overly entitled kids running around campus. An administration and culture that harbored a pedophile for 13 years is hard to talk your way around when recruiting an 18 year old kid and convincing his family that Happy Valley is the best place for him, even if the corrupt leadership is no longer around.
Serious question: is there any reason to think that the problems with the "administration and culture" that enabled and exacerbated the current crimes will affect a recruit's time at the school going forward, other than the sanctions?
I see two issues that, working together, led to the Sandusky cover-up: the cult of personality around Joe Paterno, and an administration (and certain other individuals) who were too weak to speak up and do the right thing. Paterno is gone, and it's not likely that there will ever be another coach who is similarly untouchable at PSU. And Spanier and others who enabled the cover-up are also gone.
Penn State, like almost any other B1G school, has always offered a good combination of athletics and academics, and now that Paterno and the others are gone, I don't see why they wouldn't continue to do so. It's not like Happy Valley is overrun with pedophiles; it just had one particularly important and powerful pedophile, who has now been dealt with.
Your comments are true and logical. Unfortunately for PSU that will not wipe clean the stigma of Pedo U. Sure with time things will heal and fade, but damage has been done and the effects will linger. Like a nuclear meltdown, the waste has seaped deep withing the surrounding environment.
I've felt a lot of the initial reactions of total doom for Penn State football were overreactions, as well.
$73 million is a lot of money, but over 5 years for something the size of Penn State, I doubt it will have much tangible effect. As for the competitive disadvantages, like scholarships, I'd send my staff to USC to learn how to pitch elite recruits and sell a small class.
I don't think they'll be any worse than they were for that stretch in the mid-00's. Joe Pa, while being a unique selling point for Penn State, was an anchor to the program late in his career as he deteriorated (and definitely now that we know what we do), in my opinion.
I know O'Brien is a pro-style guy, but it would be a great time to start the spread offense at PSU. There's a large grace period where expectations will be low that gives them plenty of time to install and perfect it. They could emerge from the sanctions with a redefined program that would be different from the Paterno era. It's not like they were winnings games with their offense before.
Pro spread guy. Remember he was the OC for New England and they run a passing spread style of offense. And I think you're right, that this would be the perfect time to switch to a more dynamic offense that would be more appealing. If they weren't winning right away they could still be very entertaining.
PSU has run a spread offense at times over the past 5-7 years. Remember their "Spread HD"?
One of the forgotten storylines here is that the Leaders division will now become a relative cake-walk for ohio, with only Wisconsin to offer any real challenge. As a border state, they will receive a natural influx of kids who would have gone to PSU--most of those kids won't look to Wisconsin as a real alternative due to distance and the historical success of ohio--and PSU's weaker roster will mean an easier win for ohio and Wiscy.
In what was, in my opinion, already the weaker division, life just got easier for ohio. Wisconsin will be the primary beneficiary this year--they are all but assured a birth in the B1G Championship--but ohio will be snatching-up recruits and wins against PSU for years to come.
Meanwhile, Michigan will benefit from getting some PSU recruits, but still has to deal with MSU, Nebraska, and, to a lesser degree, Iowa. Thank goodness for Northwestern and Minnesota.
As for PSU's path back to respectability? I think the OP has made it sound much easier than it is. While I'm not sure it's the 20-year sentence Whitlock believes it is, I think it will probably be 6-10 years before they're back to consistently competing for the Leaders' title. In order for the OP's scenario to play out, they will need great recruiting and even better coaching. While I'm not a Dantonio fan, the guy is a very good football coach, and it's hard to find that level of quality in a HC and staff. O'Brien is charged with getting more from less (as Dantonio is) and will be dealing with a Meyer-coached ohio squad and Bielma's proven track record of turning 3* players into very large people that can run the football.
But you have an added layer of difficulty: a sheer lack of numbers. Even for the best coaches, only about half of their prospects pan out. For every 3* Bielma and Dantonio have turned into solid players, there is a kid that hardly ever plays and another kid that ends-up performing like a 3* player. O'Brien not only has to make the most out of his talent, he'll have to do it with less depth.
Suddenly, Illinois and Perdue are PSU's recruiting and talent peers; and even lowly Indiana could take a game or two. While I agree that this won't kill PSU's tradition, money, and facility advantages, it will be darn tough to field a quality (by PSU standards) team in the next 6 years, until full recruiting classes have had the chance to arrive and develop some. Even then, years of losing will take their toll, and--outisde of O'Brien being a Saban-level coach and recruiter--PSU will need a few more years to scrape back into the top tier of the Leaders Division.
I differ a little about the timeframe. I doubt they will be able to attract highly ranked players with the prospect of bowl eligibility by their junior years. Their small classes are not going to compare to USC's. I can see PSU being very good 3-4 years after the sanctions. Their last small class and their first full recruiting class will be the key. They will be able to pitch playing time with no penalties ahead. If they pull in very good classes then, those players will have a lot of experience playing together by the time they are upperclassmen. Probably an unusally strong bond too.
A lot will depend on the coaching staff. As you point out, their ability is unknown. PSU better hope they hired the right guy. They won't have the ability to replace him for quite awhile.
I'm not sure their fanbase will be quite as loyal as you suggest. Certainly, some will. But there are going to be two factions who won't come back (for awhile, at least):
1. Those genuinely sickened by the scandal and turned off to the program (we saw this with Michigan basketball)
2. Those angry with the PSU administration for "selling out to the NCAA" who will want to boycott.
I don't know how large these factions are, but I'd suspect that they are substantial. PSU will still have good attendance (on paper) this year because tickets have already been sold, but I'd expect a pretty big drop for 2013.
Pretty good write-up. I agree, Penn State will not be winless, or last place in the Big Ten Leaders Div, or anything extreme like that.
Due to its USC-like geographical recruiting advantages Penn State was a sleeping giant that O'Brien was about to wake up. This will delay that for some time. But not forever.
"USC-like" substantially overstates Penn State's recruiting advantages. USC gets their pick of the elite athletes from what is, at worst, the third best talent producing area in the nation. Pennsylvania is 6th ranked state for producing BCS recruits according to Rivals, and is only fractionally better than #9 North Carolina. (PSU also doesn't enjoy nearly the advantage in western PA, Pennsylvania's most talent rich area, that USC does in southern California). More importantly, USC has a number of quality of life advantages that Penn State does not enjoy, from the weather, to the beach, to the general enticements of Los Angeles. Instead, State College is tucked in a lovely but very isolated valley in the mountains more than two hours from a large metropolitan area with winters that are long, cold, gray, and snowy.
I just did a quick eyeball survey of Rivals class rankings since 2003. USC never finished out of the top ten and had at least three #1 classes. Penn State appeared in the top 10 once, at #6, with most classes in the mid 20s and several in the 40s. Penn State simply hasn't recruited at the level of an elite program over the past decade, and it's unclear if they ever did. There's no reason to assume that they will suddenly start to when they come off probation.
I just went through reading 6 threads on Black Shoes Diaries.
Regarding their fan base: not possible.
What was Penn State like before Joe Paterno? Michigan's had a long line of success (with a few down years here and there) and a few legendary coaches... Yost... Chrisler... Schembechler. Take any one of those giants, blow up their legacy (as is now rightfully happening to Paterno) and though it hurts, you've still got a hell of a lot of history left. Penn State... I'm not so sure that's the case.
Before Paterno, PSU's coach was Rip Engle from 1950-65. He was pretty successful and Paterno, his assistant, succeeded him. (In a sense, Engle is where this all started, because he hired Paterno and recruited/coached Sandusky. Of course, he couldn't have known what was to come.)
BTW, it's Crisler - no "h".
It's July 23rd, fall camps will start in a few weeks, meaning no juniors or seniors are transfering from Penn State, not starters who are returning for sure. Why would you transfer right before fall camp to coaches that don't know you, to a system you don't know, when you have no time to prepare. Good luck breaking into the starting line up.
They'll be fine next year, as USC showed the first year of their sanctions, even with Lane Kiffin as coach. Seasons two and three will be rough and they'll probably bottom out to around 3 or 4 wins by the end of the sanctions period. At that point, as already mentioned, the facilities will still be in place, the huge stadium, Pennsylvania will still be pumping out football players, and if O'Brien is a bad coach, he'll be sacked, and an up and coming assistant or MAC type coach will be drooling over the chance to come into Happy Valley and rebuild the program. They'll have the instant selling point of starting immediately, by then, something horrific will have happened at another program and people will have lessened their hate, and the improvement will be on.
In fact, the worst thing that might happen to Penn State is they are mediocre with O'Brien during this period, they retain him, and perhaps they stay mediocre. While as a coach, it's hard to argue Joe Paterno build the program, and to a lesser extent the school, much like Bowden, the program had declined strongly under him, even with the occasional good season (see 2005). By falling flat on their faces during this period, they can begin a completely new building process. Oklahoma did this, Texas did this, USC did this, a lot of programs fell hard, and then rebuilt. Penn State has everything in place to do the same, and the region will remain loyal.
"If Bill O'Brien can get Penn State up to around .500 while playing under such severe sanctions, which is very clearly possible, imagine what he can do the instant the sanctions are lifted." - from the OP
If it is the case that, during the period where the sanctions will have their maximal effect, O'Brien is keeping this team around .500 and still bringing in at least middling talent, then they probably are in a decent position to make strides during their "recovery period", if you will, which in my mind probably doesn't begin until almost 2020 or so. As you mentioned, he has first-rate facilities, an intensely loyal fanbase and some history to still rely on - he is not walking into this totally unarmed.
I guess this would be an opportune moment for someone like O'Brien to innovate a little (or a lot) with this program. After all, as he has never been an HC before, and now this has happened, the typical expectations in State College are gone. Even the folks at BSD would probably agree that it was becoming stale in the waning years of Paterno, and under what seem like dire circumstances, there is a strange opportunity to raze the remains of the program as it was and build it into something else.
Of course, because they may not have the resources for a while, Bill O'Brien is by default the perfect person for the job. He will also have to do it with not a lot of top-tier talent for a while too. I still foresee some very down years ahead for Penn State.
I have to agree with the OP here. Realizing that PSU is not USC or Ohio (and these sanctions are more severe), it's amazing how quickly USC bounced back (or never went away?) and how quickly it appears Ohio will be back on its feet. Penn State does have a similar national football profile/notariety to these other 2 programs, with all the aforementioned advantages (alumni, fan base, stadium, facilities, etc.). I wouldn't be surprised if PSU is back to competing for the B1G Championship in 6-7 years.
I don't think that is a great comparison. Those schools were not slammed anywhere near as hard by the NCAA, nor were their scandals anywhere near as bad. The PSU scandal is stll in the early stages - it'll be another few years for all the legal investigations, trials and settlements to conclude. That will all be bad publicity for the football program. PSU could be down for awhile. What might possibly happen is Pitt emerging as the power in Pennsylvania.
When a team gets scholarship reductions they always could still field something close to a 2-deep with scholarship players but we still know (even with 85 and some walk-ons) that sometimes injuries, attrition, and guys generally not panning out can create a huge gap in a team very quickly.
With only 65 scholarships over 4-5 classes, you're looking at about 14 a year which doesn't fill all of your roster requirements. We've seen how dire O-line depth can be with guys being injured or out of shape. I could easily see Penn State trying to field an O-line consisting of 4-5 scholarship guys (total) and a lot of converted guys and walk-ons.
Theoretically they could make it work, but I think it's likely at least 1 or 2 position groups are a disaster in a few years
Comments