OT: Penn State

[Fishy]

Someone told me yesterday that PSU was going to be hit with a $50M fine and four years of postseason bans - I told him he was crazy.

I'm shocked at how hard the NCAA hit them. They simply clubbed them to death - they'll build back up quickly after the bowl ban ends, but they're a non-entity for the next 6-8 years.

It is impossible to cast PSU in a sympathetic light, but I wonder if the NCAA hasn't overstepped here. Under the current prez, the NCAA seems to be more about bolstering their own rep than anything else. (e.g. Retroactively casting the APR net back in time to catch a big fish.)

One thing is darned near certain - the next time a school finds itself having done something wrong, they will not be hiring a former FBI director to investigate it. Penn State rolled a grenade into their own hut with that report.

 

[Kitaman]

I haven't followed it that closely but I would be more shocked if any accused or named (directly/indirectly) still worked there.

 

[arnie3]

Fishy said, I'm shocked at how hard the NCAA hit them. They simply clubbed them to death - they'll build back up quickly after the bowl ban ends, but they're a non-entity for the next 6-8 years.

Still, if your assumption is correct, they will be better off than SMU which was given the death penalty. SMU has never come back to where it once was. I'm waiting to see if there is a major exodus from football by the four and five star players. If there is, then it may take longer because no five star high school kid wants to be associated with a year in year out losing team.

 

[nomar]

As they say, the cover-up is often worse than the crime. Obviously that's totally wrong in the most crucial of regards here, but as far as the effects on the PSU football program, it sure is true.

I wasn't in favor of the "Death Penalty" for PSU but for anyone who was, I imagine your blood lust has been satisfied. My interest in seeing PSU severely punished certainly has been.

I just wish there was a way to really punish the culpable people without ruining the legacies of innocent players (and coaches). It's easy to point to PSU fans' irrational defense of Paterno throughout this and say they're getting what they deserve, but they didn't hurt those kids or do anything to cover it up. They're just doing what most hardcore, irrational sports fans (which is redundant) would do in a similar situation.

 

[AtlHusky]

Fishy said, I'm shocked at how hard the NCAA hit them. They simply clubbed them to death - they'll build back up quickly after the bowl ban ends, but they're a non-entity for the next 6-8 years.

Still, if your assumption is correct, they will be better off than SMU which was given the death penalty. SMU has never come back to where it once was. I'm waiting to see if there is a major exodus from football by the four and five star players. If there is, then it may take longer because no five star high school kid wants to be associated with a year in year out losing team.

SMU got the death penalty for the same reasons why they were as good as they were in the '80's. The same cannot be said of PSU.

 

[progrocks]

and a little thing like the fall of the SWC had something to do with them being left behind.

The two best examples of right place right time in recent memory was Baylor getting the B12 invite and Utah getting into the PAC before things went crazy.

 

[arnie3]

and a little thing like the fall of the SWC had something to do with them being left behind.

The two best examples of right place right time in recent memory was Baylor getting the B12 invite and Utah getting into the PAC before things went crazy.

Also, SMU was considered a pariah at the time. I don't believe that any conference had interest. Baylor had a murder and a cover-up, so I wouldn't put Utah in that category!

 

[suzyq]

Someone told me yesterday that PSU was going to be hit with a $50M fine and four years of postseason bans - I told him he was crazy.

I'm shocked at how hard the NCAA hit them. They simply clubbed them to death - they'll build back up quickly after the bowl ban ends, but they're a non-entity for the next 6-8 years.

It is impossible to cast PSU in a sympathetic light, but I wonder if the NCAA hasn't overstepped here. Under the current prez, the NCAA seems to be more about bolstering their own rep than anything else. (e.g. Retroactively casting the APR net back in time to catch a big fish.)

One thing is darned near certain - the next time a school finds itself having done something wrong, they will not be hiring a former FBI director to investigate it. Penn State rolled a grenade into their own hut with that report.

Don't know who this guy is, but clearly there was a desire within the executive branch of PSU to put this in the past and move on. Does it seem odd that the entire board wasn't consulted about this?

Penn State Board of Trustees are unhappy that the university's administration agreed to severe NCAA sanctions announced Monday without first consulting the 32-member group.

 

[TRest]

Also, SMU was considered a pariah at the time. I don't believe that any conference had interest. Baylor had a murder and a cover-up, so I wouldn't put Utah in that category!

SMU was also built on a house of cards fanbase.

 

[arnie3]

SMU was also built on a house of cards fanbase.

That is the difference with this, too. PSU's alumni has donated tremendous amounts of money in the wake of this.

 

[prankster]

Are there going to be Title 9 implications, or do the sanctions simply subtract the 20 scholarships while preserving the 20, offset, women's scholarships?

Anyone know?

 

[Gurleyman]

I'm glad to see significant sanctions, but I do admit after a cursory glance at the penalties, that the part that confuses me is that they had to vacate all their wins from 1998-2011. As far as I know, that's only happened when ineligible players have been used.

Hopefully, Emmert isn't putting in this precedent so he can vacate our '04 title because Clive Vaughan bought a $10 hummer.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

[jleves]

I was hoping they would take the Big10 revenue for 4 or 5 years and donate it to sexual abuse charities and I kind of nailed it. I just didn't think they would add the 60M on the front end - plus the other revenue the Big10 siphoned is pretty huge. Lack of scholorships isn't a huge issue as they can't really compete so why waste scholly money. Let some walk ons play for a few years.

As for the SMU comment - it's a totally different story and one year of death would be seriously preferred by Penn St. This is going to cripple them for 7 years or more, not 2 or 3. Plus the financial hit.

 

[Fishy]

Are there going to be Title 9 implications, or do the sanctions simply subtract the 20 scholarships while preserving the 20, offset, women's scholarships?

Anyone know?

Seriously?

This is your question? You care about that?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is no, you nitwit.

 

[Fishy]

Fishy said, I'm shocked at how hard the NCAA hit them. They simply clubbed them to death - they'll build back up quickly after the bowl ban ends, but they're a non-entity for the next 6-8 years.

Still, if your assumption is correct, they will be better off than SMU which was given the death penalty. SMU has never come back to where it once was. I'm waiting to see if there is a major exodus from football by the four and five star players. If there is, then it may take longer because no five star high school kid wants to be associated with a year in year out losing team.

SMU was an entirely different case.

Penn State, as a football program, plays by the rules and has legitimately come by their standing the CFB pecking order - and they will ultimately return there.

SMU was just built on a flood of money. They cheated their way to where they were and they returned to their natural place in things when they were unable to continue doing so.

 

[upstater]

Seriously?

This is your question? You care about that?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is no, you nitwit.

I'm not sure whether anyone should either care or not but I don't see how they don't cut other sports. The fewer football scholarships allows them to axe a few women's scholarships. And men's sports. Some quick math. $110 million a year budget. $60 million in donations and licensing/branding/royalties, $30 million in tickets. Assume 85,000-90,000 show up for games if they're lucky instead of 110,000, assume at least 20% fewer will be buying PSU swag (if they're lucky), a drop in donations, add to that the penalties: $25 million going to charities so far.

That's a $45 million hit.

As part of the fine, the NCAA insisted that PSU maintain current spending.

But the governor said no taxpayer funding can be used to pay the NCAA fine.

Since the research budget and the endowment can't be used by law, that leaves only one source: tuition money.

I think the NCAA is going to have to relent on forcing PSU to not cut spending when it's taking a yearly $45 million hit. Only Rutgers could survive that kind of hit and continue on losing that kind of cash!

 

[prankster]

Seriously?

This is your question? You care about that?

The short answer is no. The longer answer is no, you nitwit.

Yup!

I heard the question raised on an sports talk show this afternoon (failed to stay with it for the answer)...

I am pretty much fine with the outcomes (whiny people bitching about the terrible consequences being faced by the players who have been given their releases continue to not interest me).

But these bean counters count every bean....with all the money they have been fined and all the revenue they are going to lose....dumping a load of offsetting scholarships might seem like an attractive option, if they thought they could get away with it.....

They have already demonstrated they are willing to do a crap ton of lousy if they think they can get away with.....it is how they came to be in this position in the first place....

 

[Fishy]

I cannot see them cutting women's scholarships given that they're a) going to have to maintain spending and b) going to be able to start to restore the football scholarships in four years. If they have to drop something somewhere, you don't want to be a male playing some Olympic sport at Penn State.

I'm not sure why Penn State agreed to this massacre. What exactly was the NCAA hanging over their head?

 

[upstater]

I cannot see them cutting women's scholarships given that they're a) going to have to maintain spending and b) going to be able to start to restore the football scholarships in four years. If they have to drop something somewhere, you don't want to be a male playing some Olympic sport at Penn State.

I'm not sure why Penn State agreed to this massacre. What exactly was the NCAA hanging over their head?

They did say they wanted to deemphasize football. But, if they really wanted to do that, they should have just done it. Not waited for the NCAA to do it for them.

By the way, Emmert said they had to keep spending constant, not spending for women's sports.

One pretty cool thing they could do is buy those $1 tix on Megabuses for players ($2 roundtrip x 5 away games x 60 players = $600 travel expenses for the year for the entire team) and also rent out the swanky football facilities to frats for parties, have the coaches line the football field. Try to squeeze as much as possible and show that you can run a BigTen football program on $63,459.55 a year, not including salaries and scholarships.

Then they wouldn't have to cut women's sports.

 

[Fishy]

Two words.

Bake sale.

 

[Gurleyman]

There are a lot of colleges that are competing in women's sports without football. UConn became a women's sports power with a mediocre I-AA team hemorrhaging money. Granted it'd be a sudden shock to the system if Penn State got the death penalty -- compared to a department that never had football revenue to begin with.

Sent from my BlackBerry 9930 using Tapatalk

 

[UConn5]

I don't see how this could have come out any other way except for handing down the death penalty. Penn State deserves it. The people who ran that school let this all happen an I don't see how that school deserves anything but the worst punishment possible. People shouldn't want to go to a school that covered this up. Hopefully that is what ends up happening an they just fade away.

The entire thing disgusts me and the current students there have just made fools of themselves for defending the actions of the people involved.

 

[arnie3]

I don't see how this could have come out any other way except for handing down the death penalty. Penn State deserves it. The people who ran that school let this all happen an I don't see how that school deserves anything but the worst punishment possible. People shouldn't want to go to a school that covered this up. Hopefully that is what ends up happening an they just fade away.

The entire thing disgusts me and the current students there have just made fools of themselves for defending the actions of the people involved.

I think that that just about says all that people around the country are feeling. The students seemed clueless and their gasping at the sanctions was just out of touch with the reality of what had been done.

 

[Waquoit]

SMU was just built on a flood of money. They cheated their way to where they were and they returned to their natural place in things when they were unable to continue doing so.

Kinda like Pitt?

 

[CL82]

Since the research budget and the endowment can't be used by law, that leaves only one source: tuition money.

Upstater, You've mentioned that the endowment can't be used to satisfy the cost of this matter a few times. I have no knowlege of the restrictions on the use of the endowment at Penn St. but I suspect that that what will happen is a shift of the percentage of allowable expenditure borne by endowment outlays. Say that a certain identifible portion of the endowment is for widget research and the university current funds that research 20% from endowment funds and 80% from normal university operating funds. The university changes that to 60% endowment and 40% from general funds. In this way 40% of the value widget research budget is freed up for dealing with this mess and no impermissable expenditure of endowment funds has been made. Obviously, I can't say this would be allowable without looking at the underlying documents but I suspect that this is what will happen. I just don't see the university putting the cost of its egregious actions on the exclusively in the backs of the students when it is sitting on $1.8 billion. I'd expect that university will do a bunch of things, including a modest tuition increase, reducing scholarships, etc. but I'd also expect that the endowment will be used to free up cash elsewhere. Do you know of anything that would specifically prohibit this approach?