Penn St Eligible for Postseason Immediately

Submitted by michchi85 on September 8th, 2014 at 2:34 PM

Not to be outdone by the NFL in their lack of punishment, the NCAA decides to end the punishment for the horrible things done by Penn St in the Sandusky incidents:


Due to Penn State’s progress in ensuring athletics dept functions with integrity, NCAA immediately restores football postseason eligibility.

— Inside the NCAA (@InsidetheNCAA) September 8, 2014



September 8th, 2014 at 2:39 PM ^

From a PR perspective, this is brilliant timing from the NCAA. Everyone is in a justifiable uproar about Ray Rice. Seems like they just snuck this in there hoping no one would notice.


September 8th, 2014 at 2:55 PM ^

Does that matter? They got screwed for 4 years for someoe buying Reggie Bush a house. Penn State knew about child molestation/rapes for YEARS, a report comes out and they get screwed for half of USCs punishment. That is unreal to me.


September 8th, 2014 at 3:14 PM ^

No players were implicated in the Sandusky scandal. But an assistant coach allegedly raped boys for years, and it was brought to the HEAD COACHES attention, and he turned a blind eye and hid it for decades. I'm sorry, that is much worse than someone buying a house for a player and his family.


September 8th, 2014 at 3:25 PM ^

did it help the program?  What competitive advantage was gained?  What do other college football programs learn from the Penn State sanctions?  What is the deterrant effect?  Is the message to other people and programs listening "you should report child molesting to the authorities if you see it happening?"  Does it take a football bowl ban for somebody to realize that?  Put another way, do you think that bowl eligibility is at the forefront of somebody's mind when determining whether to report child molestation, like, "hmmm, I just saw child molestation with own two eyes, let me weigh this for a second, what should I do, well, let me start with how this is going to effect our bowl eligibility."


September 8th, 2014 at 3:34 PM ^

Dude, some things are just wrong.  So wrong that you can't just turn a blind eye toward them.  I don't care if Penn State got an advantage or not.  I just want other college administrators to know that there are some things they can't let their coaches get away with.  Child molestation seems like a pretty good place to draw a line.

Gulo Blue

September 8th, 2014 at 6:14 PM ^

Some things are so wrong, punishments aimed at an athletic team, impacting how they play a game is an insult. When someone breaks our criminal laws, our legal system should deal with them. If a University is going to do anything in response to the findings of the legal process, it should be to cut all ties with the guilty. I think we got confused because we judge coaches over what additional football penalties they give players that break laws. It makes sense for minor stuff for a coach to give a player a second chance and make him work for it, but as players kept getting 2nd chances for progressively more serious things, we got the idea that football penalties are an appropriate response to serious criminal activities. It isn't. It's a slap in the face.


September 8th, 2014 at 3:53 PM ^

It's probably easier to recruit young high school boys when you don't have media stories about coaches sexually molesting other young boys. I would go so far as to say that such a coverup would be "helpful".



September 8th, 2014 at 6:37 PM ^

2 ways it helped the program:  

1. They got to keep their DC who was a very good coach.   Had they fired him like they should have, his replacement may have been inferior, and there would have possibly been a blip through the transition.

2. The media shitstorm surrounding the firing would have made PSU look bad an affected recruiting.  By covering it up, you avoid TONS of (deserved) bad publicity.  

So yes, their transgressions absolutely gave their program a competitive advantage compared to a program who handled it properly.  PSU had a choice between doing what was right, and what was best for football and they chose the latter.  That's why they were punished.

Avon Barksdale

September 8th, 2014 at 3:36 PM ^

In all fairness to Joe Paterno, he did what he was supposed to and reported it to the higher ups - both the athletic director and Director of campus PD. It's not Joe Paterno's fault that Campus PD nor the administrators did their job.

So to say he "turned a blind-eye" is complete bullshit to be quite honest with you. Legally, he did all he was bound to do. He also had a not-so-great second hand report of ONE incident in which he had ZERO evidence of being able to prove.

Can you even imagine being in his shoes? You have to turn one of your friends/co-workers (of 15 years) in on a tip (that you don't even know is true). He did exactly what he was supposed to do, and I commend him for being brave enough to not only take that to his AD but the head of campus security as well.



September 8th, 2014 at 4:07 PM ^

So your yardstick is that he did all he was supposed to do? Seems like that wasn't Freeh's opinion.

Did you follow the emails where it was suggested that certain action be taken and that "Joe" decided that there were better ways of handling things, avoiding publicity.

The most damaging documents in the Freeh report to Paterno are a handful of emails and notes that Freeh investigators found in March 2012. Freeh's investigators said the emails suggested Paterno, university president Graham Spanier, athletic director Tim Curley and Schultz were all aware of the 1998 criminal inquiry of Sandusky, who had showered with an 11-year-old boy, and were trying to conceal it. In emails in May 1998, Schultz says he had "touched base with" Paterno about the alleged incident. Days later, in an email with the subject line "Jerry," Curley emails Schultz, "Anything new in this department? Coach is anxious to know where it stands."


Freeh concluded "Coach" was a reference to Paterno and that Paterno, Schultz and Curley were beginning to engineer a cover-up of the incident.…

Your comment about "imagine being in his shoes" has my eyes rolling.  He wasn't acting on a tip, he was told the gory details by a coach who witnessed Sandusky with a kid in the shower, to say nothing of the past history of Sandusky's antics.

Paterno's actions were designed to do one thing,  and one thing only - shield his "storied" program, and his legacy, from bad PR.  In his later years, Paterno was an egotistical fool who was barely functional and who refused to give up the reigns of a program at least a decade or more longer than should have been the case.  There was considerable behind the scenes chatter about wanting to replace Paterno, but he continued to use his popularity as a shield.


September 8th, 2014 at 4:19 PM ^

your saying that it was widely believed that the football program would have been better off without Paterno?  He was staying at the expense of a program, one that he did not care enough about to step aside when he needed to.  But at the same time he conspired to keep the Sandusky incidents under wraps because he care too much about the program to have it tainted.  These are two irreconcilable positions.

Kapitan Howard

September 8th, 2014 at 4:24 PM ^

They're not irreconcilable. He didn't want the program tainted because that would have reflected poorly on him and he would be fired. At any rate, he was a disgusting pedo-apologist and Penn State did do the right thing when they finally fired him.


September 8th, 2014 at 5:14 PM ^

I don't get your point.  Staying on longer than Paterno should have and hiding a pedophile whose presence would have tainted his program are two separate events that do not conflict with each other.

It sounds like you assume that had Paterno retired, the Sandusky scandal would have gone away. What is the basis behind your thinking? Sandusky was still in State College associated with a charity while preying on kids.


September 8th, 2014 at 5:09 PM ^

You are a mess to dare bring the "Sandusky was his friend" card into this.  Some things supercede everything else.  Even if it was a close family relative, you report something like this and do everything in your power to prevent it.  Especially when you have the power JoPa had.  No point in arguing with you that's obvious.


September 8th, 2014 at 6:42 PM ^

I would not say Paterno did what he was "supposed to do."  He did the bare minimum of what he was required to do and that's not the same thing.  He absolutely turned a blind eye.  He knew about what happened, and when his higher-ups did nothing, he took the "well if they don't care, I don't care" approach, rather than being disgusted by it.  If I had even a sneeking suspicion that my friend/co-worker was up to that kind of stuff, I think I'd go a little further than my bare minimum legal requirement.  


September 8th, 2014 at 9:59 PM ^

if i have an employee accused of molesting children, sure i report it.  but i also sure as hell talk to that dude about it and follow up on all investigations about it.  i sure as hell wouldn't have an accused child molestor working for me until he was cleared, let alone having children go on out of town trips with an accused child molestor, and having him run a childrens organization

paterno can rot in hell as far as i'm concerned.


September 8th, 2014 at 5:32 PM ^

Other than Reggie Bush and OJ Mayo, who else was responsible for taking money at USC?

It was literally those two guys taking gifts from an outside agent and a few free long distance calls for the women's tennis team. That's it.

Penn State's Head Coach, Athletic Director, and university President were all implicated and several more high level officials were charged with perjury. The crimes are officially dated as far back as 1994, but it is widely accepted that this could have been going on as far back as the late 60's to early 70's during the beginning of his coaching career.

I feel bad for the innocent players of both schools, but if you don't crater a football program for knowingly harboring a suspected (and eventually convicted) pedophile for over 15 years , then you might as well not even exist as an enforcement agency.

Cali Wolverine

September 8th, 2014 at 2:44 PM ^

teams to fulfill its contractual obligations to bowl games? Lessen sanctions related to child molestation scandal is cool...but to one dumb father-in-law taking we will let that stand. Fuck the NCAA and its hypocrisy.


September 8th, 2014 at 2:46 PM ^

Good for the kids currently at the program.  PSU deserved to be punished, but it feels like time has sufficiently passed that the guilty parties have been properly dealt with.


September 8th, 2014 at 2:58 PM ^

levied against Penn State never made sense in the first place.  The Penn State scandal had nothing in common with any of the other cases discussed above, USC, etc.  It was its own beast entirely and I really don't think the NCAA had any business trying to sanction the football program when it was 1) so completely unrelated to football that it was a stretch to even rationally justify how sanctions were appropriate, and 2) based almost entirely on the Freeh report, an absurdly biased and conclusory document that is widely recognized to be complete bullshit.