The bell tolls for Penn State

[bsmooth]

This is sooo much worse than the death penalty.  Losing 10 scholarships per year for 4 years, allowing players to immediately be able to transfer AND play, allowing existing players to use their scholarships (which count against the total) and not have to play, ineligible for confererence championships and bowl play for 4 years, plus probation.  It effectively has made the football program non-existent for at least six years.  The only players they will have are D2 and D3 guys.  What D1 player in their right mind would want to go and play there anytime in the next 4-5 years.  Once a team sucks for a couple years it takes quite awhile to build back up, see the Miami Dolphins. It sucks for existing seniors as it would be hard for them to transfer, also for juniors.  Any decent freshman or sophmores will most likely transfer if they have half a brain.  In listening to the news conference I got the impression that the only reason they didn't get the death penalty is that the NCAA didn't want a backlash from individuals related to game day operations losing their jobs, and the band having nowhere to play.

This was way over the top.

@Pappy "It punishes those responsible"?? Don't know what you are referring to as the four or five indivduals that had a part in this are all gone, so how exactly are they being punished by this??

It punishes the program that was placed above the victims, and it punishes the university for allowing this program to dominate the purpose of the school. PSU football is not dead. PSU football has been all about JoePa and there was a lot of talk about how good they would be once he was gone as it was his legacy that brought in blue chip recruits.
This will hurt PSU football for several years, but they will come back faster than SMU did.

[CF DolFan]

It punishes the program that was placed above the victims, and it punishes the university for allowing this program to dominate the purpose of the school. PSU football is not dead. PSU football has been all about JoePa and there was a lot of talk about how good they would be once he was gone as it was his legacy that brought in blue chip recruits.
This will hurt PSU football for several years, but they will come back faster than SMU did.

There seems to be a huge disconnect between some people. Most understand that it was the "program" while others see it as a few people who are already gone.

I think we all know that football/basketball etc. programs at many of the colleges dictates what gets exposed or covered up. This is just as much a warning to them as it is a punishment for Penn State getting caught.

[BigDaddyFin]

The punishment makes some sense in that the University is going to lose millions of dollars, and yeah, I wanted the NCAA to have some balls for a change and give them the death penalty because this is far worse in my mind than athletes taking money.

The following doesn't make sense:

1.  Vacating Joe Paterno's wins AFTER Sandusky retired.

Since Jerry Sandusky's actions had little if any effect on the games being played.  I'm venturing the real reason they did it was so that he would no longer be college football's winningest coach, and I'm sure we won't be hearing his name mentioned by announcers during games anymore.

2.  Stating that you're not punishing the players who are there now and had nothing to do with this.

You took away the bowl games (rightly so) and will not allow Penn State to compete for the championship for the next 5 years.  So what are the players who are there now supposed to play for?  How the hell are they supposed to recruit anybody for AFTER the ban is lifted.  What's the new coach supposed to tell his players?  "Well let's go out there and play for the tradition of Penn State."  How long is that going to be motivational?  Five minutes?  Maybe ten?  You punished the players who are there now and will be there in the future without punishing them.

3.  You fined Penn State $60 million, roughly the amount that the program generates gross every year and you're going to set up a fund for abused children.  I actually called for or thought about calling for this in my "you're the president of Penn State" post.  But the number you (the NCAA) came up with?  Too arbitrary, and what does it do  And it includes nothing as far as an apology from the administration who allowed this to happen although I realize at least two of them are facing charges. 

[masterfins]

This case, like most things, is all about MONEY and POWER.  Any cover up is fueled by people wanting to keep their powerful jobs, and keep the donations rolling in.  It doesn't appear that Sandusky's acts were being committed while he was coaching at PSU, so I think the harsh penalties the program received were over the top.  I would have rather seen them fine them $250K, or more.  Since the penalties will result in reduced football income, I guess the monetary penalty will in reality be much higher than the $60M.  Additionally, PSU will still be paying out huge sums in lawsuits to the victims.

[Phishfan]

  It doesn't appear that Sandusky's acts were being committed while he was coaching at PSU, so I think the harsh penalties the program received were over the top. 

Not sure where you got that from. Sandusky retired from PSU in 1999. Some of those 40 charges were for incidents that happened while he was a coach. Also, this is only from the victims that were identified for the trial. I feel it is very likely that there are more children who were never identified (his adopted son being one we know of) for trial.

[Spider-Dan]

The following doesn't make sense:

1.  Vacating Joe Paterno's wins AFTER Sandusky retired.

Since Jerry Sandusky's actions had little if any effect on the games being played.  I'm venturing the real reason they did it was so that he would no longer be college football's winningest coach, and I'm sure we won't be hearing his name mentioned by announcers during games anymore.

Paterno's actions to cover up Sandusky started in 1998, so that was the point they chose to start vacated wins from.

[Pappy13]

1.  Vacating Joe Paterno's wins AFTER Sandusky retired.

Since Jerry Sandusky's actions had little if any effect on the games being played.  I'm venturing the real reason they did it was so that he would no longer be college football's winningest coach, and I'm sure we won't be hearing his name mentioned by announcers during games anymore.

Paterno's actions to cover up Sandusky started in 1998, so that was the point they chose to start vacated wins from.

Not to mention that some of Sandusky's crimes after that point were on the Penn St. campus because although Sandusky doesn't work there anymore he still has full access to the campus facilities. Paterno and the football program already know there had been allegations made against Sandusky but they continued to look the other way while Sandusky used Penn St facilities. There were multiple incidents on campus where people had reported inappropriate behavior by Sandusky and NOTHING was done to stop it. You don't see a problem with that? See a timeline of events below.

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/7212054/key-dates-penn-state-nittany-lions-sex-abuse-case

[MaineDolFan]

I think my feelings on this are pretty well know.  Every person involved, be it Sandusky himself or anyone who covered it up helped cover it up or thought about covering it up, should be dragged into a public arena - slowly castrated and then made to soak in a tub full of salt water.

Here is what I don't understand:

Vacating the wins.

The team on the field won the games.  There was no competitive edge.  This isn't a story about a team full of blood doping fiends, steroid abusing linebackers or point shaving book keepers.  Nothing was done to the actual product on the field during this time. 

Maybe someone can help me understand the vacating the wins portion of this?  I'm open to it, I just don't understand where this falls into place in the grand scheme of the rest of the punishment, how it really fits.  Sure, it "sounds nice."  That's about it, so far as I can see...

[Phishfan]

^^^ It served no other purpose than to take Joe Paterno out of the record books. I don't know where the justification come in other than Paterno being shown to have the power to cover up players actions as part of the report. Maybe they justify it outside of the Sandusky actions and tie it in to other communications outlined in the report.

[Pappy13]

Here is what I don't understand:

Vacating the wins.

Well you can vacate wins all you want and for the team itself it doesn't have much meaning, but for the COACH who is the winningest of all time, taking those wins away is HUGE!!!!

Penn St has already removed the statue of Joe Paterno. The NCAA has gone one step further now and removed his name from the record books as well. It has very little to do with the team or the football program moving forward, it has EVERYTHING to do with stripping the accolades from Joe Paterno. Now you may not agree with it, but I think you can understand why they did it.

[CF DolFan]

I rememebr that we received an extra win the year after I graduated because of something that wa discovered on another team. It had no meaning to me beyond joking about it. I can't see how anyone who played during that time will be affected by the "technicality" of forfeiting those victories. It's Paterno and his legacy that will suffer.

On a side note I kind of feel bad for Bowden as his name will be followed by an asterick whether real or imagined. Every time someone mentions "winningest coach of all time" people are still going to remember Paterno ... at least for Bowden's lifetime.

[MyGodWearsAHoodie]

It is all about the legacy.  If the MLB commish had done the right thing and stripped McGwire & Bonds records, they would not be in the records book with an asterics there names would not appear at all.

[bsmooth]

I think my feelings on this are pretty well know.  Every person involved, be it Sandusky himself or anyone who covered it up helped cover it up or thought about covering it up, should be dragged into a public arena - slowly castrated and then made to soak in a tub full of salt water.

Here is what I don't understand:

Vacating the wins.

The team on the field won the games.  There was no competitive edge.  This isn't a story about a team full of blood doping fiends, steroid abusing linebackers or point shaving book keepers.  Nothing was done to the actual product on the field during this time. 

Maybe someone can help me understand the vacating the wins portion of this?  I'm open to it, I just don't understand where this falls into place in the grand scheme of the rest of the punishment, how it really fits.  Sure, it "sounds nice."  That's about it, so far as I can see...

It is just erasing JoePa from the books plain and simple. Same with taking down the statue, changing the name of the tent city, etc.

[Dave Gray]

Covering up ABSOLUTELY gave a competitive advantage.

Had the program come clean and they had a child rape scandal on campus, you don't think that would've had some serious potential to hurt recruiting and image?  I do -- without a doubt.  If I'm a talented player and it's a toss up between two schools, I'm picking the one where the defense coordinator wasn't a pedophile rapist.  I think some of you may underestimate how much that kind of thing (even if the university purges that stuff immediately) harms a program.

[Spider-Dan]

Had the program come clean and they had a child rape scandal on campus, you don't think that would've had some serious potential to hurt recruiting and image?  I do -- without a doubt.  If I'm a talented player and it's a toss up between two schools, I'm picking the one where the defense coordinator wasn't a pedophile rapist.  I think some of you may underestimate how much that kind of thing (even if the university purges that stuff immediately) harms a program.

It's kind of fuzzy.

In '98, when Sandusky was still an employee, I agree with you that it would have been an embarrassment.  But in '01, Paterno had a clear path to throw Sandusky under the bus without it affecting the football program:

- after the "questionable incidents" (at least, to public knowledge) in '98, PSU decided that it would be in everyone's best interest if Sandusky "retired"
- Paterno could have fully cooperated and been shocked, shocked that a former colleague was abusing his position with a children's charity to molest kids

Paterno and PSU could have walked off with "clean hands" (again, to public knowledge) and played themselves as yet another victim of Sandusky's diabolical scheming.  But for some reason, Paterno decided to keep protecting Sandusky.  There are only two reasons I can think of:

1) he didn't want to see his longtime friend go to prison, and thought that talking to him privately would stop the problem (my original guess)
2) he was scared of the '98 coverup being flipped on him (which is probably the more likely scenario)