Penn State getting schollies back...

[John]

I'm responding to people who are so focused on the penalties for football. It's wrongheaded. Those are not nearly as important. Who cares? The much bigger concern should be the regularity with which this occurs.

Yes, let's gloss over the Penn State incident and focus on how it happens all over the place.

 

[upstater]

Yes, let's gloss over the Penn State incident and focus on how it happens all over the place.

The gloss on Penn State is what's going on now. It's been 2 years already, and the case has been swept under the rug. I would have expected more. You're getting a sideshow and you're sticking to it. Why? Because it's a PR show meant to distract. Every single article on ESPN about the case focuses on the NCAA's reactions. No one bothers to understand how those sanctions came about, or how the NCAA and PSU's BOT are playing everyone. This is all preplanned from the start for maximal PR impact. And the chair of the BOT who planned all this is a Second Mile member who was told about Sandusky years ago--but said nothing because of his ties to the Gov. and Second Mile. The same guy who hired Freeh. But that's OK for everybody because at the end of the day, the only concern is sports!

 

[upstater]

Football is what matters most to Penn State, and so they got hit where it hurts. That's why.

I think I've already stated that the reductions (which were surely pre-planned) are geared to not hurt football very much.

 

[ZooCougar]

I think I've already stated that the reductions (which were surely pre-planned) are geared to not hurt football very much.

That's why reductions weren't the only penalty.

 

[upstater]

If a guy in accounting is stealing money, you don't punish the guys in shipping.

There are guys in shipping who are involved. There are several members of the administration, including the President, the board of trustees and the governor.

 

[upstater]

That's why reductions weren't the only penalty.

I've already stated above my sense of the bowl ban being minor compared to the scholarship reductions. The reductions were hurting the team on the field. And it would get worse in the future. They would lose a majority of their games. By comparison, the bowl ban is one game late in the season. It hasn't stopped them from recruiting. My perception was the same as yours when this began, that the bowl ban would hurt most. Now, I don't think that's true. Bringing in 10 players a year is what would have killed the program. I think Ohio State, Miami, UNC have shown that multiple year bowl bans do not kill football. They don't prevent coaches from going to schools under those sanctions, and they don't prevent players from coming. But just try to play football with a handful of players, and then you see the losses rack up.