Operation Sports Logo Header
Home
Operation Sports Logo Header
News Post

Sound off: Did the NCAA Go Far Enough with Penn State?

  09:54 AM - July 23, 2012 by RaychelSnr


The penalties are in. In what was unprecedented and swift action against Penn State University (which Penn State fully agreed with), the NCAA did the following:

  • Four Year Postseason Ban
  • Reduced Scholarships to 65 total over the next four years -- making Penn State a functional FCS team.
  • $60 million fine, or one year gross revenue from the football program.
  • Any player can freely transfer to another school without penalty.
  • All wins vacated from 1998 to 2011.
So what do you think? Did the NCAA go far enough in their penalties against Penn State?


Sound off!

Member Comments
# 141 kingkilla56 @ 07/23/12 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Perfect Zero
Way to over-generalize the population. I guess that justifies cutting jobs and decreasing the economic growth of a town that is hit by the current recession. It really was the population that raped the kids, even if they really didn't even know what was going on.
I cant say the entire population knew anything about this. That's Ryan's idea. But justifying cutting jobs and decreasing economic growth of a town hit by the current recession? That isnt the point of the sanctions. Nobody wants that to happen to them. They are like you say, innocent. But it is what it is at this point. Penn State football is going to take a major hit for a long time. But Penn State football isnt being killed. Games will still be played, people while still be filling the stands, and the town will still support the program. Collateral damage is inevitable, but the NCAA is not concerned about the collateral damage.
 
# 142 franch1se @ 07/23/12 12:29 PM
what I want to know is will the players who transfer to a new school count against the current scholarship limit for this season? If no, I hope Lane goes after and gets sr's for depth to make our roster the size of everyone else's. Could be a huge opportunity.
 
# 143 Ramminyou @ 07/23/12 12:30 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franch1se
what I want to know is will the players who transfer to a new school count against the current scholarship limit for this season? If no, I hope Lane goes after and gets sr's for depth to make our roster the size of everyone else's. Could be a huge opportunity.
No, but the teams will have to offset whoever they get this year with fewer schollies next year I believe.
 
# 144 rangerrick012 @ 07/23/12 12:31 PM
I'm of two minds on this. On the one hand, it's perfect that JoePa loses the record, as that's one of the things I was for before the punishment was handed out. I'm also okay with the fine and the loss of scholarships.

On the other hand, if the NCAA really wants to paint this as a 'cultural integrity' problem, then it's going against the wind - State College isn't the only town that's carried by college football, and JoePa wasn't/isn't the only CFB coach who has/had godlike status at a university.

Hitting PSU hard is fine, but it doesn't change the problem of coaches getting paid more than presidents and sports (CFB mainly) impacting the decision making of schools. I know this was an extreme and horrible circumstance, but does anyone really think this punishment will stop kids from getting paid under the table by boosters? Like I said, I'm fine with the PSU punishment, but if CFB really wants to change the culture at these schools then a lot more has to be done than this.
 
# 145 seasprite @ 07/23/12 12:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by da ThRONe
Well clearly they had the authority because they did so. Just because a particular drug or weapon isn't on the books specifically doesn't mean the police can't arrest you for having it.
So, since the AA took it upon themselves to punish outside of their bylaws, that means they had the authority to do so? As to your second part, the AA has nothing to do with criminal punishment or investigation. Of course the police could arrest you under your scenerio, but this isnt the police or the criminal justice system we are talking about, its the NCAA.
 
# 146 seasprite @ 07/23/12 12:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franch1se
what I want to know is will the players who transfer to a new school count against the current scholarship limit for this season? If no, I hope Lane goes after and gets sr's for depth to make our roster the size of everyone else's. Could be a huge opportunity.
There is no way that the AA will allow USC to take players over their current scholarship limit, they are still under the scholly AA punishment right?
 
# 147 Greatness @ 07/23/12 12:34 PM
No, NCAA did not.
 
# 148 jmood88 @ 07/23/12 12:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by nolesfan69
Yes I am personally satisfied with the decision. And most of all I want to congratulate Coach Bobby Bowden "the winningest coach in NCAA football". Great job NCAA.....you finally did something right for a change. LOL!
Wrong, Eddie Robinson is.
 
# 149 seasprite @ 07/23/12 12:37 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greatness
No, NCAA did not.
Did not what?
 
# 150 XFactah416 @ 07/23/12 12:37 PM
Like the vacated wins idea. Congrats to Bobby Bowden.

Like the fines; hopefully that goes to a charitable cause.

The bowl bans and stuff? Penn State isn't gonna make a bowl game anyway after these scholarship restrictions so it's more or less pleasing the public.

And, while it may not be "fair" to punish the kids, it sure as hell wasn't fair to go punish USC then for the last two years. When something this big is uncovered and deliberately kept under wraps for who knows how long, **** is getting real and that's just the reality of the situation.
 
# 151 brettford @ 07/23/12 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramminyou
I don't know how many times it has to be said that the fact innocents are being punished is inconsequential unless someone is willing to argue against all institutional sanctions. If you don't think the NCAA has jurisdiction, that's a valid point that can be argued. Otherwise, all serious sanctions imposed by the NCAA impact innocent players and potentially the community at large. And I doubt the local bar owner is more willing to accept that he is doing less business because the school was violating recruiting rules than he would be because the school was involved in a sex abuse scandal.
Here is the difference:

The NCAA exists to provide a common set of rules for its member institutions. These are largely to define the terms by which the teams will organize and compete, and many of the rules are designed to maintain competitive balance and a respect for those rules.

We need these rules because it is not illegal for you to pay a recruit. It is not a crime for you to play with 30 men on the field. As far as I know, you are not at risk for going to jail if you give an athlete $200.

If there were no possible threat of sanctions by the NCAA, everyone could cheat and there would be no consequences.

This is different.

If you commit or cover up a crime (say child sex abuse, perhaps) YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL. There is already a pretty major consequence hanging over these people's heads. Nobody is going to think about committing a federal crime, but then consider, "what will this mean for a possible vacating of wins?"

That is why regulatory action by the NCAA makes zero sense to me.

We cannot always prevent the negative impacts toward innocent 3rd parties, per the bartender example you give. I understand that.

But here we are dealing with a situation in which the regulators did not need to act, but did anyway. Therefore they hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily.

The only argument I would be sympathetic to would be if this criminal behavior was benefiting the football program. Again, let's be careful about nuance here. I don't think Penn State earned extra wins because they didn't tell anyone about Sandusky. The powers that be preserved their image for a little while, but they weren't giving themselves an advantage.
 
# 152 Ramminyou @ 07/23/12 12:38 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
Did not what?
Thread title.
 
# 153 JimLeavy59 @ 07/23/12 12:39 PM
Penn State will be on Indiana level for the 25 years.
 
# 154 da ThRONe @ 07/23/12 12:39 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
So, since the AA took it upon themselves to punish outside of their bylaws, that means they had the authority to do so? As to your second part, the AA has nothing to do with criminal punishment or investigation. Of course the police could arrest you under your scenerio, but this isnt the police or the criminal justice system we are talking about, its the NCAA.
The point is there's nothing wrong with adjusting on the fly when the circumstances dictate such actions. You are arguing the letter of the law which is cool this is about the spirit of the law. The spirit of the law is they withheld info to maintain a competitive advantage which in my book is the the exact same(in this case far worse) as giving away benefits to gain a competitive advantage.
 
# 155 franch1se @ 07/23/12 12:40 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by seasprite
There is no way that the AA will allow USC to take players over their current scholarship limit, they are still under the scholly AA punishment right?
Thats why i was saying it could be huge. I know when USC players were allowed to transfer they did not count against a teams limit for the first year since it was so close to football season and teams were at the max number of players already. They did have to be at the correct number the following season however. If its the same, Lane could take sr's for depth purposes just for this season.
 
# 156 Pokes @ 07/23/12 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by kingkilla56
This isnt about thinking like a rational adult, or agreeing with everything you say, or turning our brains on. This is a polarizing conflict with various opinions on every side of the case. People dont agree with you, get used to it. Dont patronize people.
Agreed, but in fairness most of the posts on this issue have been emotion, not rationally driven with a few logical fallacies thrown in.
 
# 157 franch1se @ 07/23/12 12:42 PM
on another lighter note...does Vegas owe me money now for Penn State games that I lost on over the years?
 
# 158 Greatness @ 07/23/12 12:42 PM
The NCAA did not go far enough with the punishments handed down.
 
# 159 Ramminyou @ 07/23/12 12:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by brettford
Here is the difference:

The NCAA exists to provide a common set of rules for its member institutions. These are largely to define the terms by which the teams will organize and compete, and many of the rules are designed to maintain competitive balance and a respect for those rules.

We need these rules because it is not illegal for you to pay a recruit. It is not a crime for you to play with 30 men on the field. As far as I know, you are not at risk for going to jail if you give an athlete $200.

If there were no possible threat of sanctions by the NCAA, everyone could cheat and there would be no consequences.

This is different.

If you commit or cover up a crime (say child sex abuse, perhaps) YOU ARE GOING TO JAIL. There is already a pretty major consequence hanging over these people's heads. Nobody is going to think about committing a federal crime, but then consider, "what will this mean for a possible vacating of wins?"

That is why regulatory action by the NCAA makes zero sense to me.

We cannot always prevent the negative impacts toward innocent 3rd parties, per the bartender example you give. I understand that.

But here we are dealing with a situation in which the regulators did not need to act, but did anyway. Therefore they hurt a lot of innocent people unnecessarily.

The only argument I would be sympathetic to would be if this criminal behavior was benefiting the football program. Again, let's be careful about nuance here. I don't think Penn State earned extra wins because they didn't tell anyone about Sandusky. The powers that be preserved their image for a little while, but they weren't giving themselves an advantage.
Then your argument is purely jurisdictional. Matt Barkley is no more guilty for Reggie Bush than a current PSU player is for Paterno/Sandusky. From the innocent parties' perspective, there's no difference.
 
# 160 seasprite @ 07/23/12 12:43 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by franch1se
Thats why i was saying it could be huge. I know when USC players were allowed to transfer they did not count against a teams limit for the first year since it was so close to football season and teams were at the max number of players already. They did have to be at the correct number the following season however. If its the same, Lane could take sr's for depth purposes just for this season.
Isnt USC still on sanctions? Scholly-wise or did that already end?
 


Post A Comment
This thread has been closed for new comments.