🏈 Penn State should decide to sit out one year

[Duder]

What happened was terrible. The leadership's (term used loosely) actions were completely unacceptable. This should have NEVER been allowed to happen, especially for as long as it did after people knew about it.

That said, this isn't a football issue. Everyone involved/responsible has been fired/arrested or is dead. Why punish the kids currently on the roster for the actions of a former DC? Why punish the local economy, especially given the economic strife we find ourselves in as a country, because of the short-sighted, criminal actions of a few men?

They will not decide to sit out for a year, nor should they. The NCAA has no grounds to serve up the death penalty. There were no impermissible benefits to players, no competitive advantage, no wrongs against the spirit of competition. It is a criminal matter, not a football matter. If people want this to be "larger than the football program" stop trying to turn it into a football issue by saying the football program should lose time. How does that atone for the kids? Will they feel better because the local economy is crippled? Because the stadium sits empty for a few more Saturdays?

Let them earn money. They're going to need it in order to compensate the children and their families.

 

[TerryP]

That's all well and good. They can transfer without penalty.

But, what about the kids who WANT to graduate from Penn State? Should they not be allowed to play their senior year?

It's as bad as political races: a lot of style points being scored but nothing of substance.

 

[TerryP]

That is true Terry, but what about the player or players that just do not want to be at Penn State anymore because of the revelations concerning the abuse and the coverup by the administration?

We haven't seen any of those so I'd say that is purely a hypothetical question. It is an interesting question. If they want to leave, and apply for a hardship waiver at another school how would the NCAA react to listing this as their reason?

None of them have had contact with Sandusky so it would be just the ones recruited by JoePa. I can't say, only speculate, but I suspect we won't see any kids speak out about wanting to leave. They are the one group that one can be pretty assured are not going to be swayed with all the grand-standing seen now.

 

[It Takes Eleven]

I believe the individuals involved in the cover-up and failure to report the crimes of Sandusky should go to jail. They will likely and rightly be sued into bankruptcy by their victims, unless PSU decides to provide some sort of indemnification for their exposure. I think this is unlikely since any civil liability rises from criminal activity. Also, PSU will pay dearly for the actions and inaction of these men, also rightly so as they were representatives of and in positions of authority for PSU.

Where should the football program factor into this situation? It shouldn't. Amid the rising tide of righteous indignation, there are calls to punish the athletic department. Despite the cover-up, this is about a criminal act that went unreported. Let the guilty parties be punished, and let PSU open up its pocket book to provide some small penance for the transgressions of its representatives. Calling for sanctions against the football program are misguided.

RTR,

Tim

 

[ElephantStomp]

Terry brought up a really good point that I hadn't even thought about. If the NCAA acts in the case of PSU then why not in the case of Alabama and Jimmie Johns?


I think the only reason the NCAA would/will do anything in the PSU case is to save face and to try and look good.

 

[bamagirl917]

The football program did NOTHING wrong!! The people that covered it up did wrong. Punish the people that are responsible for the crime of covering it up.

And how do you even begin to go about doing that? You're talking about a cover-up that went on for decades and involved everyone from janitors, campus police, a detective who openly stated he was trying to avoid having to report the incident, the people involved with the charity who had been made aware of what Sandusky was doing, the people who knew he wasn't supposed to be using the facilities where the showers were, all the government officials who were aware of past investigations, the spouses/friends/family members of every person who knew anything.. because you know there's no possible way that anyone involved kept it to themselves all these years. Was there anyone in happy valley who HADN'T heard the rumors? My point is that it's all just way too pervasive IMO to not warrant a blanket action

TTo say that everything was covered up because this country views athletics as a "sacred cow" is ignorant at best. It was covered up because of friendship and respect.

If you honestly believe this had nothing to do with the football program then I don't have anything else to contribute to this thread.. lol. Yeah, all of these people were all just such great friends with Jerry Sandusky....

I've seen too many instances where people read the opinions of others in the media and adopt those viewpoints without consideration of the entire picture.

This seems eerily like one of those cases.

Independent thought can be a beautiful thing.

Possibly the most humorous thing on the thread... well, next to "the Sandusky cover-up was unrelated to football".. it would be hard to top that lol. Just because somebody has a different opinion- and is also intelligent enough to know better than to engage in debate on an issue they haven't followed- doesn't mean they can't think independently and must somehow be subconsciously "adopting" a viewpoint they "learned" from the media. Give me a break.. while plenty of factual inaccuracies get thrown around on this forum (and this post), I still have no problem giving anyone credit for having formulated them all by themselves in their own little brains. I also think it was fairly obvious from my OP that I had certainly considered the entire picture, I just came to different conclusions about it than the rest of you.

 

[ElephantStomp]

@Bamagirl917,

My point was to say that the entire thing happened because of football is ignorant. It happened because some people were chicken sh**s and didn't have the courage to stand up. I don't think it's fair to pin it on a "sacred cow" instead of that people didn't have any courage or decency at all.

Ok, maybe my friendship thing was a bit idiotic (at best), but my point being the major people that covered it up was based on a friendship of individuals and not solely just because it was football related.

 

[bamascw]

As I suspected when I read the topic title on this thread, both sides of the argument are being supported. My two cents worth;

Was what happened a horrific event? Yes. Did those involved have major roles in the football program? Yes. However, some of those individuals that helped to cover up the events were university "big wigs" not just football. That being the case, should they shut down the entire university for a year? Of course not, so why shut down football for a year?

Football did not cause this, the current staff and players did not cause this. I just don't see how shutting down the football program helps to punish those involved or helps the victims to get justice. It is more of a knee jerk reaction because Joe is dead and what else can you do.

 

[TerryP]

I'll admit, when I see people say things in public situations like this one I tend to take what they're saying literally. It's not a time to mince words, it's not a time to be vague. Say what you are thinking and then do what you say; it's pretty damn simple.

“Right now is a very special moment in the history of the NCAA,” Emmert said.


“There’s an enormous amount of political courage, if you will ... to do the right thing on a variety of cases, and we’ve been demonstrating that again and again in recent months. ... If there’s findings of violations of our rules, the decisions will not be based upon whether people want to be courageous or not.”

 

[UAgrad93]

Something that I heard CNS mention this morning got me thinking. He said that "they" should put a tax on all tickets and have that money donated to charity for abused children. I would like to go a step further so bear with me. Instead of a tax, the University would only jack up the price of tickets to offset their losses, take $10-$15 for each ticket for all sports, not just football, and have it donated for a 5 year period. Any time period, just said 5 so it would hurt the University where it counts, in the pocketbook!! Have the NCAA penalize the University by mandating a "freeze" on ticket prices for that time period. Over this set time period, this would amount to a "major" donation to a very deserving charity. Allow any player wanting a transfer, immediate relief; put any bowl money into the charity pool as well. This way, all players that remain can still have something to play for, ie.championships, bowls, bowl gifts, etc.

Just my two cents on the subject. Giving the University the death penalty for a year or two doesn't do anyone any good.

 

[TerryP]

Something that I heard CNS mention this morning got me thinking. He said that "they" should put a tax on all tickets and have that money donated to charity for abused children. I would like to go a step further so bear with me. Instead of a tax, the University would only jack up the price of tickets to offset their losses, take $10-$15 for each ticket for all sports, not just football, and have it donated for a 5 year period. Any time period, just said 5 so it would hurt the University where it counts, in the pocketbook!! Have the NCAA penalize the University by mandating a "freeze" on ticket prices for that time period. Over this set time period, this would amount to a "major" donation to a very deserving charity. Allow any player wanting a transfer, immediate relief; put any bowl money into the charity pool as well. This way, all players that remain can still have something to play for, ie.championships, bowls, bowl gifts, etc.

Just my two cents on the subject. Giving the University the death penalty for a year or two doesn't do anyone any good.

I've been chewing on that over the afternoon as well. It was definitely a thought outside the box.

 

[planomateo]

So the fan eats a $10 increase or the school takes a $10 loss on tickets? If they fan has to pay, then I don't agree. Kinda goes along with what you guys have been saying, why should the team have to pay (why should the fans have to pay?).

Its definitely a different view, I just think its on the school, not the fans. Now if the fans want to do this on their own.

Maybe the school pays by default on the $10, unless the fan checks the box to say they want to donate $10 kinda thing.

 

[UAgrad93]

So the fan eats a $10 increase or the school takes a $10 loss on tickets? If they fan has to pay, then I don't agree. Kinda goes along with what you guys have been saying, why should the team have to pay (why should the fans have to pay?).

Its definitely a different view, I just think its on the school, not the fans. Now if the fans want to do this on their own.

Maybe the school pays by default on the $10, unless the fan checks the box to say they want to donate $10 kinda thing.

The $10 would come from the school not the fan. That is why I said to have ticket prices frozen to keep the University from hiking prices in order to cover the loss. No way would I suggest that the fans should foot the bill on this! Hope I clarified this for you.

 

[Bo]

The $10 would come from the school not the fan. That is why I said to have ticket prices frozen to keep the University from hiking prices in order to cover the loss. No way would I suggest that the fans should foot the bill on this! Hope I clarified this for you.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

 

[planomateo]

thanks for clarifying.