The actual NCAA penalties for PSU

[TouchdownHusky]

As far as recruiting, I think Penn State will be fine, especially for the top kids. There is a lot less competition for playing time now, and it is still Penn State and the guys across the line are still Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc. I also think the perception of a "harsh penalty" will reduce the Sandusky stigma that would have otherwise been associated with the program. It gives the perception that Penn State will have paid its debt to society. I am sure that was deliberate by both the school and NCAA to enable Penn State to come out of this on their feet.

Even with the reduced scholarship number, Penn State will be a very attractive destination for top recruits in the Northeast.

With this I agree - and there is the avenue of escape. The Lions needed to be crippled and this probably won't get it done. When the time comes they'll be right back in the upper reaches. This isn't SMU. Penn State will once again live off of the "big time football legacy" left by JoePA.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Yawn. Cutting off the part of the post where I answer this question is weak.

I cut it off because it's not an answer. You just say you think they're not entitled to the bowl revenue. So either you agree with me that it's a separate penalty, or you disagree with me that it's a separate penalty, and for some reason, their lack of entitlement disqualifies it as a penalty. The reality is, it's still a punishment. But for the hell of it, here it is:

My point is that Penn State does not have a right to that revenue. Appearing in bowls is a privilege for programs that succeed while playing ethically. I view Penn State's punishment as an opportunity for Purdue or Indiana.

I'm not sure how Purdue and/or Indiana play into this other than there's one less competitive program in the B1G for a while to come, which would be the case either way if they shut down the program in perpetuity, or imposed the penalties they did.

 

[Kgun7]

As far as recruiting, I think Penn State will be fine, especially for the top kids. There is a lot less competition for playing time now, and it is still Penn State and the guys across the line are still Ohio State, Michigan, Wisconsin, Michigan State, etc. I also think the perception of a "harsh penalty" will reduce the Sandusky stigma that would have otherwise been associated with the program. It gives the perception that Penn State will have paid its debt to society. I am sure that was deliberate by both the school and NCAA to enable Penn State to come out of this on their feet.

Even with the reduced scholarship number, Penn State will be a very attractive destination for top recruits in the Northeast.

I'm going to agree with nelson here. PSU recruits will offer to walk-on and pay their own way in order to show their love and support for Joe Pa and the university. They will be lining up for O'Brien's camps just like they were lining up to get their last pic of the statue.

I could easily see these headlines: "Top Big 33 QB foregoes scholarship to Pitt to walk-on at PSU"

I guess we'll tally the prediction results in 10 years ...

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I cut it off because it's not an answer. You just say you think they're not entitled to the bowl revenue. So either you agree with me that it's a separate penalty, or you disagree with me that it's a separate penalty, and for some reason, their lack of entitlement disqualifies it as a penalty. The reality is, it's still a punishment. But for the hell of it, here it is:



I'm not sure how Purdue and/or Indiana play into this other than there's one less competitive program in the B1G for a while to come, which would be the case either way if they shut down the program in perpetuity, or imposed the penalties they did.

I guess, by that measure, Penn State will be vacating the next 4 National Championships, because it may have won those but now we will never know.

I get that you are a Penn State fan, but you are a little over the top on this topic.

 

[businesslawyer]

You couldn't be more wrong about any of this. While not the death penalty the program was put into an induced coma. The body will wither tremendously and may or may not recover.

Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2

Never tell Waylon he couldn't be more wrong. He will try to prove you in error.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I guess, by that measure, Penn State will be vacating the next 4 National Championships, because it may have won those but now we will never know.

I get that you are a Penn State fan, but you are a little over the top on this topic.

You must have misread the penalty. They are not forfeiting the money they would have earned if they went to a BCS bowl, they're forfeiting the money every school in the conference receives from BCS revenue, regardless of whether they make it or not. So instead of that money being split 12 ways, with the participant getting more, it's split 11 ways. Just as UConn gets money every year from the BCS, regardless of whether we make a BCS bowl, Penn State will not get that for the next four years. Thus, it is indeed a penalty.

And, you've now invented the strawman reality that I'm a Penn State fan.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Agreed... the crazy part is once the trial comes up it's gonna look even more like they got off light...It's like a wise guy paying somebody off to do a little time ( slap on the wrist ) and be like business as usual after the 4 years are up.

NCAA has reserved the right to add penalties based on additional information that comes out of the trials.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

NCAA has reserved the right to add penalties based on additional information that comes out of the trials.

That's good to hear. I would suspect they're not done investigating. As I've said all along, I cannot fathom how over the course of the years this went on, there wasn't a single dime of hush money paid to someone. If that is revealed, there most definitely will be further sanctions.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

You must have misread the penalty. They are not forfeiting the money they would have earned if they went to a BCS bowl, they're forfeiting the money every school in the conference receives from BCS revenue, regardless of whether they make it or not. So instead of that money being split 12 ways, with the participant getting more, it's split 11 ways. Just as UConn gets money every year from the BCS, regardless of whether we make a BCS bowl, Penn State will not get that for the next four years. Thus, it is indeed a penalty.

And, you've now invented the strawman reality that I'm a Penn State fan.

I didn't misread anything. Your arguments are difficult to follow. Is this the place where you said Penn State receives $13MM per year from the Big 10 for the BCS? Does this mean the Big 10 receives $13 x 12 =$156MM from the BCS? The entire BCS for all conferences is about $150MM a year now. I have no idea what you are saying here.

I don't know how the Big 10 allocates its bowl revenues. If you assert that the bowl revenues are split evenly among all schools regardless of whether they make a bowl, I don't care enough to argue with you. I have not seen the Big 10 penalties, and thought they were still determining what those would be.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

Learn to read, the $60 MM was assessed by the NCAA, the $13 MM per year forfeiture of BCS revenue is imposed by the B1G on TOP of the 60. PSU's loss of its own bowl revenue for four years is then on TOP of that. $60 MM is NOT the extent of their financial penalties imposed here.

Additionally, none of the $60.0MM can e taken from other athletic programs. According to Bilas, it's either football or the academic side.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

FWIW, the $13 million figure being discussed is not per year. It's $13 million over the course of the 4 year post season ban. Or, $3.25 million per year.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

nelson,

I think that Penn State gets no bowl revenues from the Big 10 for the 4 years they are banned from bowls.I don't think it is just BCS revenue. I don't know what the number is but it is pretty big on top of the $60 million. Again, this wasn't the death penalty, but it was substantial and it will hurt. It was significantly bigger punishment than USC. I would guess that best case, Penn State probably has a future looking very much like the current Notre Dame for a decade after the sanctions end...8-4 in a good year, with a trip to the Bob's Bait & Tackle Shop Bowl to play the B-12 #7. The thing is that Penn State is not USC or Ohio State or Michigan or Texas. Close, but not there...and the Big is simply better than the Pac12 making recovery even tougher.

Bowl money, however much and wherever from, won't be available to help pay off the $60.0MM.

 

[Santini35]

From USA Today/ BiG10 Release

4. Fine: Because Penn State will be ineligible for bowl games for the next four years, it will therefore be ineligible to receive its share of Big Ten Conference bowl revenues over those same four years. That money, estimated to be approximately $13 million, will be donated to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children.

 

[UCFBfan]

Interesting article basically making it sound like PSU could come out of this just fine if the pieces fall just right. They refer a lot to USC in terms of players leaving the program and I tend to agree. I only see these sanctions as effective if players leave and recruiting is affected. If that doesn't happen, PSU will just be playing with a smaller deck and a bigger chip on its shoulder and that's just wrong. People in State College will still not get what this is all about....

http://cfn.scout.com/2/1204623.html

 

[nelsonmuntz]

From USA Today/ BiG10 Release

4. Fine: Because Penn State will be ineligible for bowl games for the next four years, it will therefore be ineligible to receive its share of Big Ten Conference bowl revenues over those same four years. That money, estimated to be approximately $13 million, will be donated to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children.

$13MM for all 4 years. A little different than $13MM annually. And it is an estimate, so we don't know what percentage would have actually been earned by Penn State based on their membership in the Big 10 versus earned through appearances in actual bowls.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

$13MM for all 4 years. A little different than $13MM annually. And it is an estimate, so we don't know what percentage would have actually been earned by Penn State based on their membership in the Big 10 versus earned through appearances in actual bowls.

I misread it as $13 M per year, but still not insignificant, and this is revenue lost in addition to any bowl revenue they would've otherwise received from being in another bowl, and it remains to be seen whether they'll have to pay back bowl revenue going back to 1998.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I don't want to keep the pissing match going. I think we can both agree that the media is making the penalties out to be much worse than they are.

This is no where near the death penalty. The death penalty would DESTROY a program, because all the players would leave, so Penn State would be starting completely from scratch. That is very different than not offering a few marginal prospects for the next 4 years to stay within scholarship restrictions.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

I'm going to agree with nelson here. PSU recruits will offer to walk-on and pay their own way in order to show their love and support for Joe Pa and the university. They will be lining up for O'Brien's camps just like they were lining up to get their last pic of the statue.

I could easily see these headlines: "Top Big 33 QB foregoes scholarship to Pitt to walk-on at PSU"

I guess we'll tally the prediction results in 10 years ...

I respectfully disagree. Unlike Nelson, I don't think "Penn State is still Penn State;" at least to those outside Pennsylvania. Parents are going to have a say in the college decision, and many will not wish to pay the highest public school tuition in the country for a tainted institution.

 

[Waquoit]

Ok, but you were the first one to mention FBS coaches.

The word got out. The last graphic I saw on ESPN changed FBS to D-1 and added Eddie Robinson.

 

[Deadrody]

Seriously, anyone who thinks Penn State got off lightly is just looking at the penalties and not realizing their long term impacts on Penn State athletics. (Aside: Don't worry...most American's don't think ahead about the long term). Football accounts for nearly 70% of the athletic department revenue. About 30% of the revenue comes from sponsorships and endorsements. I have no doubt these penalties will financially ruin the athletic department and force programs to be cut.

In addition, the scandal has already had its toll on alumni giving and applications. Penn State is royally ducked. Sure...take away more scholarships. It'd only be a drop in the ocean of financial ruin Penn State has just delivered itself.

Yeah, great. Nothing says "justice" for victims like cutting the women's track team.

 

[NHUConnfan]

There are not many schools like UC-SD out there. Hard to believe their endowment is larger than ours.

For a side note, UConn's endowment is appauling for a school our size and I'm glad that Herbst has made it a #1 priority.

I don't invent realities. You are listing the forfeiture of future bowl revenue as a penalty. My point is that Penn State does not have a right to that revenue. Appearing in bowls is a privilege for programs that succeed while playing ethically. I view Penn State's punishment as an opportunity for Purdue or Indiana.

The rest of your post is a personal attack on me. Not sure what the problem is.

Have you forgotten that the B10 combines its bowl money and shares it with all of the schools, bowl or not?

I don't want to keep the pissing match going. I think we can both agree that the media is making the penalties out to be much worse than they are.

This is no where near the death penalty. The death penalty would DESTROY a program, because all the players would leave, so Penn State would be starting completely from scratch. That is very different than not offering a few marginal prospects for the next 4 years to stay within scholarship restrictions.

Unless someone's time traveled to the future, there is no way to tell if these penalties have destroyed the program or not. First, people are assuming that Penn State football will rebound almost immediately. This is all hinging on the fact that O'Brien does well as a HC, but if he struggles, it's not like PSU will be able to replace him immediately with these financial penalties that will hurt for years to come. You're also assuming that PSU will continue to get the same types of recruits year in and year out which I think is far from certain.

If PSU is not able to recover within 10 years, they could just as well permanently damage their reputation as a football school. I mean, do you remember when SMU was a top football school? I bet you right up to the death penalty of SMU a lot of students would have loved to play for them. Now, they have trouble getting a really good recruit. If Penn State can't rebound in 10 years, that's 10 years of future football players that never experienced PSU football as it was for the past 30 years. It may just not be that appealing anymore at that point.

I'm just playing devil's advocate. I'm not sure if that's going to happen or not. No one does, so get off your high horse about how you know that PSU is better off with this penalty than the death penalty.

 

[HuskyHawk]

I do agree that I'm not sure that this is "worse" than the death penalty. This strikes me as different, as it doesn't create as much collateral damage as the death penalty would have. The businesses in State College who rely on PSU football to survive won't be shut down, the other programs in the athletic department that run off of football-generated revenue won't be affected as much, and both of those aren't a bad thing, though it does bring up "too big to fail" concerns.

That said, it still cripples the program, and in many ways, PSU will have their own "death penalty" to deal with, as they're going to have enormous trouble recruiting, scheduling games, etc. far beyond this four year period since few are going to want to be associating themselves with the program.

Agreed. I would gladly string Sandusky up from a lightpole for his crimes, but the death penalty would hurt many people who did nothing wrong. All the current players and even students for starters. Even this imposes massive collateral damage on the non-football athletics at the school, as I'm not sure how PSU funds them. Sadly, Joe P is dead and Jerry Sandusky is already headed to prison. The punishments can't target those they need to.

 

[NHUConnfan]

Yeah, great. Nothing says "justice" for victims like cutting the women's track team.

I'm not saying that it is...just trying to put it in perspective. Penn State is royally ducked if you ask me.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Yeah, great. Nothing says "justice" for victims like cutting the women's track team.

Why punish any school at all for anything?

 

[NHUConnfan]

Why punish any school at all for anything?

Time for your nap Waylon...you're getting cranky.