- Joined
- Aug 26, 2011
- Messages
- 5,214
- Reaction Score
- 10,914
Just curious what Boneyarders think of the penalty. The results I've seen are mixed. Some believing it went too far, others thinking it went not far enough.
At some level, the NCAA can't tell recruits to stop coming to PSU if they want to. The program and the university are significantly tarnished. If recruits still want to come, that's their prerogative, and it's not the NCAA's job to interfere with telling kids where they can and can't play. Fan's understanding of why things happened ultimately has virtually no relevance to anything other than assuaging public outcry.I think only time will tell if these sanctions were correct or if more was needed. If PSU still recruits top level classes and not many players leave, then more was needed. PSU fans and alumni still believe they were wrongly treated by these sanctions so clearly they still don't get it. In the end, this is a big problem and the sanctions will only be effective if the football product is negatively effected and the fans finally understand why these sanctions are being put in place.
Exactly. The NCAA, frankly, has no place here. They are simply piling on as the clueless organization that they are.They showed some sensitivity to the players and community by allowing the games to be played, but punished the players too much. The rest looks like a money grab and a chance to show the NCAA pummeling a brand name, much like the UConn APR.
Ultimately, I think they overstepped their authority by the letter of their own by laws.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk 2
So the idea here is to damage the PSU football program ? I thought the idea - as tenuous a connection as you can make - was to offer some kind of justice for the victims.I think only time will tell if these sanctions were correct or if more was needed. If PSU still recruits top level classes and not many players leave, then more was needed. PSU fans and alumni still believe they were wrongly treated by these sanctions so clearly they still don't get it. In the end, this is a big problem and the sanctions will only be effective if the football product is negatively effected and the fans finally understand why these sanctions are being put in place.
The idea was never to offer justice for the victims. Only the court system can do that. The idea was to take revenge on the institution, even though it was individuals that were to blame. Since the NCAA can't take revenge on the individuals, the institution was their only option, even though they didn't have jurisdiction to cover that. This is just a public relations powerplay by Emmert and the NCAA.So the idea here is to damage the PSU football program ? I thought the idea - as tenuous a connection as you can make - was to offer some kind of justice for the victims.
Good to know you are honest about the situation. Because an assistant coach molested kids a decade ago and the head coach now retired AND dead didn't do enough, in 2012, Penn State should somehow not be able to recuit top level classes.
That's Bull$hit IMO.
Revenge is wholly the incorrect word to use and only serves to show how off-base some arguments that are being made on this board are.The idea was never to offer justice for the victims. Only the court system can do that. The idea was to take revenge on the institution, even though it was individuals that were to blame. Since the NCAA can't take revenge on the individuals, the institution was their only option, even though they didn't have jurisdiction to cover that. This is just a public relations powerplay by Emmert and the NCAA.
That was strictly a potshot at Paterno, unless they force PSU to return bowl revenue from those years."Vacating" those wins going back to 1998 got them good. Total blow to their image and Paterno's story. Turned into an above average program with a past. One more championship than Rutgers. If I did the math right, their overall win percentage dropped from .658 to .540. Records say they have 11 straight losses in bowl games. All time bowl record is now 15-21-2.
I am aware of that. It does involve the program that Paterno built, as well. His run is easily one of the best ever. Correction, all-time bowl record is 21-21-2.That was strictly a potshot at Paterno, unless they force PSU to return bowl revenue from those years.
No, it should not have been killed, that would've punished people who didn't have anything to do with it. That also promotes the theory that the football coach and administration are bigger than the program and the university as a whole. Punished, yes, killed, no.The whole program was a dumpster fire for years. It should have been killed. Today. But hopefully their sentence will have some kind of a lasting effect.
It doesn't work that way. How do you know it'll take 14 years to change the culture there? Suppose they completely cleaned house in the AD, the football program, and the university administration, which they sort of already did, it's definitely going to take them 14 years to change the culture of the program? That makes no sense.Not enough. The penalties should last as long as the coverup - 14 years. It would take that long, at least a few generations of students and administrators, to change the culture.
It would have been much better to just bar them from postseason play for 14 years, and skip the fine and scholarship reductions.
No, it should not have been killed, that would've punished people who didn't have anything to do with it. That also promotes the theory that the football coach and administration are bigger than the program and the university as a whole. Punished, yes, killed, no.
It's a moot point now. But it would have just been collateral damage. And the blood would have been on Paterno an Co.'s hands.
I appreciate you pov, but sometimes you have to go full draconian, life is just like that sometimes.
So the idea here is to damage the PSU football program ? I thought the idea - as tenuous a connection as you can make - was to offer some kind of justice for the victims .
If you don't think this whole situation has been a deterrent to this ever happening again, I don't know what would. Between the media scrutiny, NCAA penalties, public shame, arrested administrators, soon to come settlements of civil lawsuits by the victims, etc., PSU as a university will be crippled by this. Those that say they'll be back up and chugging in six years are putting their head in the sand. You can bet universities around the country all have put in place measures to ensure no one else gets "Penn State-d".No. Punishment is used to act as a deterrent, so that this - or anything else like this - will never happen again.
What constitutes "collateral damage?" In this case (death penalty) it would not have been the faculty. The students would have been fine. The players? They would have had a choice between staying, on scholarship, or the minor inconvenience of transferring. The fans? Give me a break.
The real collateral damage would have been the wait staffs at the area's restaurants and dining rooms, the people who pump gas for the fans who make the drive to State College, the people that handle check-in/out and clean hotel/motel rooms, stadium ushers, people that work at concession stands and others we all tend to forget. A lot of these people need the money to make ends meet.
I think, for the first time in recorded history, the NCAA might have gotten it right.