Penn State/Sandusky report is out [merged]

[pjrose]

Well, the penalties handed down seem like a hand slap to me. 4 year bowl ban, $60M fine, and vacating of wins back to 1998. The only penalty with teeth is the scholarship reduction (20 per year for 4 years).

As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers. The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.

I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims. But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.

And punishing students wanting to go to college? students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.

 

[Clemson Fan]

I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?

I think the answer is clearly never. I think the NCAA regrets giving the death penalty to SMU and they've made the decision to never dole it out again. If they didn't apply the death penalty in this case, then they never will.

I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment. The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals. It was very much a plea deal.

 

[Ken555]

I think the answer is clearly never. I think the NCAA regrets giving the death penalty to SMU and they've made the decision to never dole it out again. If they didn't apply the death penalty in this case, then they never will.

I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment. The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals. It was very much a plea deal.

Unfortunately, I think you are absolutely correct. I haven't read a significant amount of the info on this specific case, and not sure I ever want to, but from what I understand it is my opinion that Penn got off light.

 

[CapriciousC]

As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers. The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.

I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims. But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.

And punishing students wanting to go to college? students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.

The $60M wasn't a number chosen out of thin air - it's equivalent to the revenue of the PSU football program in a given year. The NCAA said that the money has to go toward programs and charities benefiting child victims of abuse, but that it can't fund programs at PSU. They also said that the money can't be taken from other athletic programs (like women's sports or other men's sports).

I've read that at least a few of the victims have already filed civil suits against the university - I'd guess the board of directors will attempt to settle as many of these as possible out of court to avoid more negative publicity.

As for the scholarship reductions, it's standard for the NCAA to do this. It's been done before, to several other schools whose infractions were very minor compared to what happened at PSU. While it does mean that there are fewer overall scholarships available nationwide, it doesn't prevent students from seeking to make a deal with another school. I think the kids who are currently on scholarship at PSU will suffer the most because at this point they're not going to have much chance to try and get another scholarship for the 2012/2013 school year. Next year, though? It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the most talented athletes transfer.

 

[am1]

The scholarship reduction and ability for players to transfer and immediately play is in hopes that Penn State is not eligible for a major bowl or the Big 10 Championship. The NCAA and BIG 10 have no interest in being embarrassed and losing money.

The death penalty would have put the BIG 10 under the 12 teams needed to have a conference championship game.

This is the world that major college sports lives in.

 

[Elan]

As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers. The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.

I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims. But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.

And punishing students wanting to go to college? students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.

I should have been more clear that my comments were in the context of doing harm to the football program. Believe me, that's all that this is about for PSU. When I said that only the scholarship reduction had any teeth, I meant in terms of hurting the football program. As large as PSU's fan base is, the school could likely procure $60M in (additional) donations in a year or less. The bowl ban is not that harmful either as PSU has not been great on the field in recent history. The team was typically bowl eligible, but it's not like they were a consistent top 10 program. The scholarship reduction hurts the most because it has a big impact (65 scholarships vs 85 for their competition), and most importantly, it's long lasting. Going 4 years with 20 less scholarships will set the football program back for nearly a decade.

 

[chalee94]

The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.

And punishing students wanting to go to college? students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.

this is not really much of an issue IMO.

if a kid wanted to go to college at PSU to play football, he likely was pretty good at football. 4 and 5 star athletes tend to have a minimum of 30-40 scholarship offers (and could have more except many schools who know they have no chance don't bother to offer). the top 10 QB who is currently "committed" to PSU also has offers from UVA, UConn, Rutgers and Florida among others. if a player with less talent misses the cut with PSU, they'll still have a chance to get an education at Ohio U or Miami (OH) or so on...

there'll be 10 kids a year across the entire country over the next 4 years or so who knew they were borderline anyway who won't get a football scholarship somewhere...but none of the kids PSU would have been recruiting will fail to get a football scholarship due to this sanction.

 

[SueDonJ]

I don't understand why some are expecting the $60M to come from the taxpayers? No doubt eventually the financial hit from all this is going to nearly cripple Penn State, and thus impact the taxpayers, but it's going to take years for the civil proceedings that will cause the crippling to be processed. In the meantime, Penn State is sitting on a huge endowment and the $60M represents just one year's average revenues from the football program. It's to be implemented immediately - I would think that public pressure from the taxpayers will force Penn State to self-fund it? Now down the road the taxpayers won't be able to bring public pressure when Penn State's coffers might be depleted, but right now they've got the money - why shouldn't they have to spend it?

The NCAA hasn't specified where the money must come from but they have said from where it can't.

Q. You mentioned the $60 million is equivalent to a year's worth of revenue from the football program. Does this also require that that money come from the athletic department or any particular source?

MARK EMMERT: It does not require a specific source. In universities, like most businesses, money is fungible. But we are insisting that this not come at the cost of reduced programs in the athletic department and other student scholarships.

*****
A couple interesting links from ncaa.org -
7/23/12 Press Conference Remarks
7/23/12 Press Conference Q&A

With a little bit of time and being able to read these things through, I'm impressed with the NCAA's decisions here (despite them still allowing football to be played thus giving a reason and a place for the Million Martyr Movement to congregate during home games.) Every sanction they imposed was carefully thought out, has significance to Penn State's program, and should result in an erosion of the poisonous culture. I especially love that there will be outside oversight to make sure that the sanctions to which Penn State has agreed will be implemented, that PSU is now under a five-year probationary period with the NCAA, and that the NCAA is reserving the right to impose sanctions on individuals following whatever Court actions take place.

My favorite result of the NCAA's sanctions is that Joe Paterno's legacy has been destroyed. Others' have been as well, but his is the one that matters most. He is the one who is most responsible for the cover-up that enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest multiple victims over a period of years, and he is the one who was both symbolically and literally placed on a pedestal in that community. The higher you climb the further you fall, and his plunge is very well-deserved.

 

[Beefnot]

I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment. The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals. It was very much a plea deal.

Interesting, I was not aware of this "consent decree" of sorts. In retrospect, this was a good move. They were effectively able to plea bargain, and not have to devise any self-punishment and risk any too harsh/lenient criticism that would have been directed at them, which would instead be directed toward the NCAA.

 

[SueDonJ]

Interesting, I was not aware of this "consent decree" of sorts. In retrospect, this was a good move. They were effectively able to plea bargain, and not have to devise any self-punishment and risk any too harsh/lenient criticism that would have been directed at them, which would instead be directed toward the NCAA.

Now that you're aware that Penn State collaborated with the NCAA and agreed in advance to accept the sanctions, do you agree that it would be as idiotic for Penn State to take issue with the NCAA's sanctions as it would be for them to take issue with the Freeh report findings?

*****
am1's question upthread about the possibility of former players and students suing, and winning, is interesting. Are there any legal minds here to answer it?

 

[geekette]

...am1's question upthread about the possibility of former players and students suing, and winning, is interesting. Are there any legal minds here to answer it?

not legal mind, dovetail question: what would they be suing for if they are not Sandy victims? Loss of ... football wins? Seriously, what damages would former players/students have suffered to enable them to win a lawsuit?

 

[SueDonJ]

not legal mind, dovetail question: what would they be suing for if they are not Sandy victims? Loss of ... football wins? Seriously, what damages would former players/students have suffered to enable them to win a lawsuit?

I dunno. That's why the question is interesting.

Take individual stats, for instance, as they might apply to juniors and seniors who are still on the team. If vacating the wins means simply that the program does not get official credit for the wins, there's no harm. But if vacating the wins means that the individual stats from those wins are also not credited, then couldn't current players be looking at reduced interest (if there ever was any) from NFL scouts?

 

[chalee94]

But if vacating the wins means that the individual stats from those wins are also not credited, then couldn't current players be looking at reduced interest (if there ever was any) from NFL scouts?

nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats. it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.

 

[Beefnot]

Now that you're aware that Penn State collaborated with the NCAA and agreed in advance to accept the sanctions, do you agree that it would be as idiotic for Penn State to take issue with the NCAA's sanctions as it would be for them to take issue with the Freeh report findings?

Given that piece of info which I was not aware, absolutely yes.

 

[Beefnot]

nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats. it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.

That is not true. They put a LOT of weight on NCAA stats. Watch the NFL draft on ESPN and you will see. It is extremely stat heavy, in addition to how they have produced athletically and intellectually in the scouting combine, among other factors. Now that said, whether the stats become official history or are invalidated, that is completely of no consequence to NFL teams. What they did on the field is a recorded, tangible statistic, irrespective of the asterisk.

 

[bogey21]

The NCAA "death penalty" would actually have been a better deal for Penn State. Instead, PSU received a sentence of life without parole. You basically are still alive, but you are much better off dead. For certain, this is the end of the road for PSU football. Since football revenues fund most other non-revenue generating sports, say goodbye to PSU dominance in women's volleyball, etc. The downward spiral will not be fun to see.

This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that it would be better for Penn State to, on its own, totally shut down its football program for 4 or 5 years. The financial losses from "life without parole" will steal dollarls from other athletic, and possibly acadamic, programs.

George

 

[CapriciousC]

if a kid wanted to go to college at PSU to play football, he likely was pretty good at football. 4 and 5 star athletes tend to have a minimum of 30-40 scholarship offers (and could have more except many schools who know they have no chance don't bother to offer). the top 10 QB who is currently "committed" to PSU also has offers from UVA, UConn, Rutgers and Florida among others. if a player with less talent misses the cut with PSU, they'll still have a chance to get an education at Ohio U or Miami (OH) or so on...

USC has expressed interest in Silas Redd, and I heard on ESPN that PSU has also fielded calls from Georgia, Oklahoma, and several other schools that are interested in some of their players. My guess is that, as you stated, the most talented players are probably very interesting prospects to other schools. The scholarship issue could be complicated this late in the year, but it wouldn't surprise me if USC in particular actively recruited some of these guys now that their own NCAA postseason ban has expired.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

I see the main point of the punishment is to be a deterrent to other schools - not to change PSU. If the embarassment, criminal charges, and civil lawsuits are not enough to change PSU nothing would be. No, the punishment is primarily designed to scare other schools and coaches straight.

 

[chalee94]

That is not true. They put a LOT of weight on NCAA stats...whether the stats become official history or are invalidated, that is completely of no consequence to NFL teams...

you argue just to argue, don't you?

the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats.

production matters to some extent...that's why i phrased the answer as i did.

even so, if prospect A has 20 sacks in the smaller MAC conference against weaker competition and prospect B has 8 sacks in the SEC while spending a lot of time in the opponents backfield being disruptive in non-statistical-generating ways, i can bet that prospect B usually goes much earlier in the draft than prospect A. prospect B is producing against NFL-type talent while A's skills might translate and they might not.

some of the top stat guys in NCAA history didn't go that high or produce that much in the NFL due to being too short, too slow (relative to NFL competition) or not fitting the NFL system.

but the context of the question was "can players sue because NCAA asterisks on their college stats will hurt their draft position?" and the answer is still "no."

 

[Beefnot]

nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats. it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.

you argue just to argue, don't you?

Sometimes. But in this case, you attempted to correct a naive statement by overstating your counterpoint. I pointed out the inaccuracy.

Even so, if prospect A has 20 sacks in the smaller MAC conference against weaker competition and prospect B has 8 sacks in the SEC while spending a lot of time in the opponents backfield being disruptive in non-statistical-generating ways, i can bet that prospect B usually goes much earlier in the draft than prospect A. prospect B is producing against NFL-type talent while A's skills might translate and they might not.

some of the top stat guys in NCAA history didn't go that high or produce that much in the NFL due to being too short, too slow (relative to NFL competition) or not fitting the NFL system.

No dispute there.

but the context of the question was "can players sue because NCAA asterisks on their college stats will hurt their draft position?" and the answer is still "no."

Agreed.

 

[SueDonJ]

Sometimes. But in this case, you attempted to correct a naive statement by overstating your counterpoint. I pointed out the inaccuracy. ...

Ha! It's always necessary with you to get the last word. And you know, earlier, I was going to let it slide until I watched you go overboard here with Charles. But turnabout is fair play and you gave me the perfect opening with what you said to him, above ...

Earlier, when I asked if you changed your mind about whether Penn State taking issue with the sanctions would be as idiotic as them taking issue with the Freeh report, you replied by saying that, "Given that piece of info which I was not aware ..." Well, that's a piece of info that you already had when you first responded to the question, because I pointed it out - "From all reports Penn State agreed in advance to work with the NCAA to determine proper sanctions and subsequently abide by them." It was actually the reason I questioned why Penn State might take issue with the NCAA sanctions, because they were in on establishing them and agreed in advance to abide by them!

So, I really did plan on letting this go. But it's just too good to let an opportunity go by to hoist you by your own petard.

But thanks to you and Charles, anyway. I actually understood the points both of you were making.

 

[Beefnot]

I am not going to let you get the final word. Why would I want to do that? Thanks for pointing out what you wrote. Oopsy. I overlooked that sentence. My bad. I have no problem saying my bad. I dish it and take it.

 

[Mel]

This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that it would be better for Penn State to, on its own, totally shut down its football program for 4 or 5 years. The financial losses from "life without parole" will steal dollarls from other athletic, and possibly acadamic, programs.

A self-imposed death penalty might have been better for Penn State itself, but not necessarily for everyone else who will be impacted. It would also be harder to come back after 4-5 years, without the ability to offer a full roster worth of scholarships.

A self imposed death penalty would also reduce the options for the football players, as they would have to go elsewhere to play, and it would be up to the discretion of PSU whether to grant them a scholarship to cover them until they graduate.

 

[pgnewarkboy]

What about the victims?

It is interesting and instructive on how quickly the attention of the media and most people has turned away from the victims and to the "football program and how innocent students, athletes, etc. etc. will be hurt".

That is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Sandusky to operate his disgusting pedophile operation at Penn State and his "charity to help kids'. The first thing Paterno and everyone else at Penn State was concerned about was how Sandusky's dirty little operation would hurt Penn State. Not his child victims.

Sandusky was a depraved child molestor. He hurt many many children. Paterno and Penn State helped him. There is no punishment that can be too severe. If "innocent" students and athletes are harmed it is because of what Paterno and company did to cover up the actions of a hideous person. That made them hideous people as well.

The NCAA doesn't want to see this happen again. Based upon everything I read and see in the media they are fighting a losing battle. AFTER ALL, it is almighty football that is the important thing. I mean we have to be able to watch our football team. Why should WE be inconvienced and miss some really good games? Why should players be inconvienced and have to move to another school to play a game? Why should the record books be changed ? Its just not fair to US! What a stupid sick society we live in.

 

[CapriciousC]

It is interesting and instructive on how quickly the attention of the media and most people has turned away from the victims and to the "football program and how innocent students, athletes, etc. etc. will be hurt".

That is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Sandusky to operate his disgusting pedophile operation at Penn State and his "charity to help kids'. The first thing Paterno and everyone else at Penn State was concerned about was how Sandusky's dirty little operation would hurt Penn State. Not his child victims.

Sandusky was a depraved child molestor. He hurt many many children. Paterno and Penn State helped him. There is no punishment that can be too severe. If "innocent" students and athletes are harmed it is because of what Paterno and company did to cover up the actions of a hideous person. That made them hideous people as well.

The NCAA doesn't want to see this happen again. Based upon everything I read and see in the media they are fighting a losing battle. AFTER ALL, it is almighty football that is the important thing. I mean we have to be able to watch our football team. Why should WE be inconvienced and miss some really good games? Why should players be inconvienced and have to move to another school to play a game? Why should the record books be changed ? Its just not fair to US! What a stupid sick society we live in.

Agreed - you might be interested in this article I read on ESPN.com yesterday:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194993/focus-on-victims-change-football-decision-way

I think he made some excellent points and really got to the heart of the matter, which is that football should never have been more important than the welfare of children (or the welfare of anyone, for that matter). There's no doubt in my mind that the "football is king and JoePa is God" culture at PSU allowed this to happen.