The actual NCAA penalties for PSU

[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.

 

[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.