The actual NCAA penalties for PSU

[BlueMAB]

Do you ever make a post that is not attacking another poster? Do you ever simply talk football or basketball on this board?

Only the ones who intentionally take people's posts and twist them to create straw men. I have no respect for them. (you).

 

[upstater]

Football made the school. They get to live in embarrassment for who knows how long.

That's not what bothers me. Embarrassment that is. It is that and more. But, they should have ended football. Not made the academic side pay. I had an inkling this is how the NCAA was going to play it.

I also don't think football made the school. Made the school more popular, yes. But you'll have to look around at the growth of state universities around the nation, especially those that don't have PSU's success at football. How are they doing? PSU is not so far ahead of many of these state schools.

 

[upstater]

Check the fine print, they are talking about FBS coaches.

If so, then why do Bowden's non-FBS wins put him over the top?

 

[upstater]

The B1G also seems to be making Penn State forfeit it's BCS share for 4 years, which is $13 million a year, $52 million total.

http://mbd.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=157&f=1395&t=9166856&p=2

$13 million a year can't be the BCS money split among 12 schools. That's $156 million of BCS money a year, whereas I think the real number was $18 million + $4 million for a second BCS bowl in the same year.

I still don't see how they came up with that unless they include a lot of other things. It's expected though since PSU football won't be adding to the coffers.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

Penn State didn't make $13MM a year in BCS revenue. That would mean the Big 10 was making almost $150MM from the BCS alone. I am not sure what you are saying.

Penn State makes $30MM a year from the Big 10 TV contract alone, which is about $25MM more a year than UConn, which has not been covering up child rapists. If you consider the effective loss of that difference for 2 years a big penalty, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Your position is that Penn State will actually have $125MM fine. I find that unlikely. I think the media is playing up a slap on the wrist to look like a loss of a limb. If Penn State is excluded from bowl revenues for bowls that they don't go to, we can agree to disagree on the meaning of that. I don't think Penn State has a RIGHT to be a Top 10 program, especially since they allowed children to be raped. You disagree. If Penn State can't go to the bowl, some other Big 10 program that didn't allow child rape will go. Zero sum game.

The question of whether Penn State has to disgorge past bowl revenues is still open. We will learn soon enough.

 

[SubbaBub]

Penn State didn't make $13MM a year in BCS revenue. That would mean the Big 10 was making almost $150MM from the BCS alone. I am not sure what you are saying.

Penn State makes $30MM a year from the Big 10 TV contract alone, which is about $25MM more a year than UConn, which has not been covering up child rapists. If you consider the effective loss of that difference for 2 years a big penalty, you are certainly entitled to that opinion.

Your position is that Penn State will actually have $125MM fine. I find that unlikely. I think the media is playing up a slap on the wrist to look like a loss of a limb. If Penn State is excluded from bowl revenues for bowls that they don't go to, we can agree to disagree on the meaning of that. I don't think Penn State has a RIGHT to be a Top 10 program, especially since they allowed children to be raped. You disagree. If Penn State can't go to the bowl, some other Big 10 program that didn't allow child rape will go. Zero sum game.

The question of whether Penn State has to disgorge past bowl revenues is still open. We will learn soon enough.

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

 

[Waquoit]

If so, then why do Bowden's non-FBS wins put him over the top?

Does it? If so, that wouldn't be right.

 

[CL82]

I believe the Penn State penalties are very severe.

That said I strongly disagree with those in the media who say this is worse then the death penalty. Nobody will be saying that the first saturday in September when there are 75,000 + people in the stands at PSU. These penalties can be mitigated to some extent if O'Brien turns out to be a genius coach who is able to rally the troops (keep them from leaving) and is able to keep the program respectable enough so that at the end of the 4 year bowl ban PSU is able to keep hit the ground running. To that extent it remains to be seen how severe these penalties are.

Agree. I do think that there needed to be a year without football for the reality of how horrific this whole scenario was to strike a cord in Happy Valley. We still have the civil and criminal actions yet to come, so they are a long way away from putting this behind them.

I'm still trying absorb the full scope of the punishment. Vacating wins seemed pointless to me. But given that Joe Pa was so legacy driven, I'm warming up to it.

 

[metsfan2323]

Only the ones who intentionally take people's posts and twist them to create straw men. I have no respect for them. (you).

Pot meet kettle.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I don't think Penn State has a RIGHT to be a Top 10 program, especially since they allowed children to be raped. You disagree. If Penn State can't go to the bowl, some other Big 10 program that didn't allow child rape will go. Zero sum game.

Please quote a post of mine where I say I disagree that PSU should be allowed to go to bowls and be a top 10 program. You are continuing to invent realities and arguments made by others to create new strawman arguments and make personal attacks on other posters. You have serious issues and I'm ashamed to be associated with the same university as you.

 

[Adios]

That's not what bothers me. Embarrassment that is. It is that and more. But, they should have ended football. Not made the academic side pay. I had an inkling this is how the NCAA was going to play it.

I also don't think football made the school. Made the school more popular, yes. But you'll have to look around at the growth of state universities around the nation, especially those that don't have PSU's success at football. How are they doing? PSU is not so far ahead of many of these state schools.

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

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I'm still trying absorb the full scope of the punishment. Vacating wins seemed pointless to me. But given that Joe Pa was so legacy driven, I'm warming up to it.

I believe the win vacation was strictly a shot at Paterno and nothing else, unless they force PSU to return all bowl revenue from that period of time, which would easily enter up into the hundreds of millions.

 

[upstater]

Does it? If so, that wouldn't be right.

I believe he has about 30-40 wins against U. Mexico and Tenn valley JUCO B team and such. Just look up his early wins. I know Eddie Robinson's fans used to get very upset about that back when Bowden was ahead of Paterno.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I just went over to lurk on a PSU board to see how they're reacting.

It makes me wish they shut down the entire operation for 5 years. PSU fans are embarassing themselves.

 

[upstater]

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

It is a great school, but I think I can point to a good many state schools that don't have bigtime football. All the U. Cal's, the SUNY's, heck UConn! Many more. I'm definitely not saying that football did not help PSU's appeal. Compare it to Rutgers for instance. But hey, even Rutgers has a solid academic reputation.

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Please quote a post of mine where I say I disagree that PSU should be allowed to go to bowls and be a top 10 program. You are continuing to invent realities and arguments made by others to create new strawman arguments and make personal attacks on other posters. You have serious issues and I'm ashamed to be associated with the same university as you.

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.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

Vacating wins going back to '98 ???? Yawn. Can't unring the bell. JoePA has taken a huge hit and his legacy is forever ruined, but his teams still won those games. Bobby Bonds still had 73 of his hits wind up over the fences. Ditto for Mark M and Sammy. Can't change that. Just need to correct moving forward.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

I hope you're preparing for the straw man that Nelson is going to throw at you in response to this post.

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

I don't invent realities. You are listing the forfeiture of future bowl revenue as a penalty.

It is a penalty, imposed by the B1G! Did you not read that article when it came out an hour or two ago? What is it if it's not a penalty then? You've invented the reality that I'm a PSU apologist and that I disagree with these penalties.

 

[TouchdownHusky]

One sanction that should have been put in place. . . UConn takes their place in the Big 12. Throw Penn State out of the Big 12 and let them struggle as an independent - or maybe they can join the Big East. Opening Day in 2015 that long awaited showdown between Penn State and Memphis. Oh boy!!!

 

[brasssbonanzaa]

Vacating wins going back to '98 ???? Yawn. Can't unring the bell. JoePA has taken a huge hit and his legacy is forever ruined, but his teams still won those games. Bobby Bonds still had 73 of his hits wind up over the fences. Ditto for Mark M and Sammy. Can't change that. Just need to correct moving forward.

If they make PSU return bowl revenues going back to 1998, that's a huge penalty. Other than that, it's a shot at Paterno, and a way to knock him off as the all-time wins leader.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

It is a penalty, imposed by the B1G! Did you not read that article when it came out an hour or two ago? What is it if it's not a penalty then? You've invented the reality that I'm a PSU apologist and that I disagree with these penalties.

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

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

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.

Fail of a post.