The actual NCAA penalties for PSU | Page 2 | The Boneyard

The actual NCAA penalties for PSU

Status
Not open for further replies.
ZooCougar said:
Penn State got over. Short of a death penalty, they should have taken more scholarships. Already the cries of "save the program at any cost" have started.

Also Waquoit is right for once. State Penn has shown too little remorse, they have been slow to act in every respect. They could have taken initiative and self sanctioned, but they didn't, they dragged their feet in covering up Paterno's statue. They just don't get it.

I hope the victims get nine digits out State Penn.
Expand ...

Seriously, anyone who thinks Penn State got off lightly is just looking at the penalties and not realizing their long term impacts on Penn State athletics. (Aside: Don't worry...most American's don't think ahead about the long term). Football accounts for nearly 70% of the athletic department revenue. About 30% of the revenue comes from sponsorships and endorsements. I have no doubt these penalties will financially ruin the athletic department and force programs to be cut.

In addition, the scandal has already had its toll on alumni giving and applications. Penn State is royally ducked. Sure...take away more scholarships. It'd only be a drop in the ocean of financial ruin Penn State has just delivered itself.
 
I keep coming back to what seemed to be a maximum of 60 schollies awarded over the nexr 4 years. That would seem to mean that 4 years from now they would only have a maximum of 60 scholarship players minus transfers injuries or ineligible players. Unless they are allowed to make up those transfers or play with redshirts it could eventually be far less than 60.

What am I missing here?
 
ZooCougar said:
Penn State got over. Short of a death penalty, they should have taken more scholarships. Already the cries of "save the program at any cost" have started.

Also Waquoit is right for once. State Penn has shown too little remorse, they have been slow to act in every respect. They could have taken initiative and self sanctioned, but they didn't, they dragged their feet in covering up Paterno's statue. They just don't get it.

I hope the victims get nine digits out State Penn.
Expand ...
I agree on this, and I believe Penn State should have self sanctioned as well, and I said it many times. I think they were more than happy to have the NCAA impose sanctions. That give them the ability to blame somebody else for any problems they might have. As far as the sanctions go, I do think these are fairly severe, and quite honestly are worse than I expected. My preference would have been to shut the program down for a year, then allow only Big 10 games for the next year or two. But these sanctions will absolutley bite, especially as time goes on. I could see it taking 10 years to rebuild. But let's not kid ourselves, this is NOT worse than the dealth penalty.
 
When the Penn State students start camping out and disrupting the classes of the ex President until he leaves the school, then I'll see that they GET IT. Too much of "we are Penn State", and this unfortunate incident could have happened anywhere.
 
The lesson here is that if you are a major program, the NCAA's punishment is always worth the crime.

6-7 years from now, Penn State will be 9-3 and playing in the Capital One or maybe even the first round of an expanded playoff, and it will be as if this penalty never happened. Both of USC's major programs got busted simultaneously for paying players and now USC football is back in the Top 5.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The lesson here is that if you are a major program, the NCAA's punishment is always worth the crime.

6-7 years from now, Penn State will be 9-3 and playing in the Capital One or maybe even the first round of an expanded playoff, and it will be as if this penalty never happened. Both of USC's major programs got busted simultaneously for paying players and now USC football is back in the Top 5.
Expand ...

A) The playoffs can't be expanded for 12 years.
B) USC's punishment was far lighter than anything PSU ever got
C) As a result of said punishment, many of the top recruits didn't leave USC since they knew they would have the opportunity to be in a bowl game
D) The Pac-12 is weak as this year.
 
.-.
I see where you are coming from, but you underestimate the motivating power of martyrdom. They should have cut more scholarships to remove any doubt. The NCAA has left a door open.


NHUConnfan said:
Seriously, anyone who thinks Penn State got off lightly is just looking at the penalties and not realizing their long term impacts on Penn State athletics. (Aside: Don't worry...most American's don't think ahead about the long term). Football accounts for nearly 70% of the athletic department revenue. About 30% of the revenue comes from sponsorships and endorsements. I have no doubt these penalties will financially ruin the athletic department and force programs to be cut.

In addition, the scandal has already had its toll on alumni giving and applications. Penn State is royally ducked. Sure...take away more scholarships. It'd only be a drop in the ocean of financial ruin Penn State has just delivered itself.
Expand ...
 
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 hit the ground running. To that extent it remains to be seen how severe these penalties are.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The lesson here is that if you are a major program, the NCAA's punishment is always worth the crime.

6-7 years from now, Penn State will be 9-3 and playing in the Capital One or maybe even the first round of an expanded playoff, and it will be as if this penalty never happened. Both of USC's major programs got busted simultaneously for paying players and now USC football is back in the Top 5.
Expand ...
It's no longer funny how wrong and remarkably stupid you are. Four year bowl ban and major scholarship reduction, good luck getting anyone to come to Penn State. That, in addition to players transferring without penalty, making PSU a free agent market for the next year, and I read the NCAA even considered (don't know if they did) waiving the scholarship limit rule for teams taking on a PSU player. We have a better shot at playing in the national championship game in the next 6-7 years than PSU does at being in the Capital One Bowl. Over the period of the next four years, they'll have to pay a $60 million fine, and lose a total of $52 million from BCS bowl revenue, and not get any of their own bowl revenue, a total of probably close to $125 million. That's not at all insignificant.


Side question, is the NCAA making PSU repay their bowl earnings going back to 1998? Other schools who've vacated wins had to do that.
 
nelson,
I'm not so sure that this won't be a good deal worse than that and much worse than USC's penalty. Trying to play a major football schedule with 60- 65 scholarship players is going to be pretty difficult. It is just not possible to build much depth, and the recruiting restrictions will hurt that too. I actually expected something like what USC got, but this is surprisingly more stringent. Penn State could be looking at a pretty long string of 3-8 seasons and I don't care who you are, it is difficult to overcome those quickly. Even when they get back to full strength, it will take a couple of years to actually rebuild the depth. And that is always one of the biggest strengths the major programs have...they lose a right tackle and the replacement is not some redshirt freshman, but a Jr who really could be starting.
 
NHUConnfan said:
A) The playoffs can't be expanded for 12 years.
B) USC's punishment was far lighter than anything PSU ever got
C) As a result of said punishment, many of the top recruits didn't leave USC since they knew they would have the opportunity to be in a bowl game
D) The Pac-12 is weak as this year.
Expand ...

A) for a different thread, but I think the bowl system is almost as dead as Paterno. I don't think it lasts 5 more years.

B) USC lost 10 schollies year for 3 years. PSU loses 20 schollies a year for 4. Close enough for government work. PSU just has to give up a few of the borderline kids that would have gone MAC if they didn't get a PSU schollie.

C) USC lost a lot of recruits. The bowl ban will hit 1 class really hard, then any recruit will be able to play in a bowl. And I think bowls are overrated for recruiting anyway. Not being able to play in Billy Bob's Truck Stop and Tractor Store Bowl in bumblepuck Mississippi is not like missing the NCAA Tournament in basketball.

D) The Pac 12 is OK, like it is every year in football. USC is a powerhouse.
 
.-.
metsfan2323 said:
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 hit the ground running. To that extent it remains to be seen how severe these penalties are.
Expand ...
I do agree that I'm not sure that this is "worse" than the death penalty. This strikes me as different, as it doesn't create as much collateral damage as the death penalty would have. The businesses in State College who rely on PSU football to survive won't be shut down, the other programs in the athletic department that run off of football-generated revenue won't be affected as much, and both of those aren't a bad thing, though it does bring up "too big to fail" concerns.

That said, it still cripples the program, and in many ways, PSU will have their own "death penalty" to deal with, as they're going to have enormous trouble recruiting, scheduling games, etc. far beyond this four year period since few are going to want to be associating themselves with the program.
 
brasssbonanzaa said:
It's no longer funny how wrong and remarkably stupid you are. Four year bowl ban and major scholarship reduction, good luck getting anyone to come to Penn State. That, in addition to players transferring without penalty, making PSU a free agent market for the next year, and I read the NCAA even considered (don't know if they did) waiving the scholarship limit rule for teams taking on a PSU player. We have a better shot at playing in the national championship game in the next 6-7 years than PSU does at being in the Capital One Bowl. Over the period of the next four years, they'll have to pay a $60 million fine, and lose a total of $52 million from BCS bowl revenue, and not get any of their own bowl revenue, a total of probably close to $125 million. That's not at all insignificant.


Side question, is the NCAA making PSU repay their bowl earnings going back to 1998? Other schools who've vacated wins had to do that.
Expand ...

I think the Penn State apologists are no longer funny.

2 years of 2-3 wins, then the option of immediate playing time at Penn State will land them a Top 10 class. By year 5 PSU will be 5-6 wins and be back up to 8-10 by year 7.

Small price to pay for hiding a child rapist for 20 years.

I would be shocked if the $60MM fine was not all inclusive.
 
freescooter said:
nelson,
I'm not so sure that this won't be a good deal worse than that and much worse than USC's penalty. Trying to play a major football schedule with 60- 65 scholarship players is going to be pretty difficult. It is just not possible to build much depth, and the recruiting restrictions will hurt that too. I actually expected something like what USC got, but this is surprisingly more stringent. Penn State could be looking at a pretty long string of 3-8 seasons and I don't care who you are, it is difficult to overcome those quickly. Even when they get back to full strength, it will take a couple of years to actually rebuild the depth. And that is always one of the biggest strengths the major programs have...they lose a right tackle and the replacement is not some redshirt freshman, but a Jr who really could be starting.
Expand ...
And after their scholarship restrictions are over, do you think all of the recruits are going to be lining up to go be associated with Penn State? The name itself is and will be toxic for many years to come and drive people away. That, in itself, is a punishment.
 
They should also make them play us for at least the next 4 years so that we can go 4-0 against them.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
2 years of 2-3 wins, then the option of immediate playing time at Penn State will land them a Top 10 class. By year 5 PSU will be 5-6 wins and be back up to 8-10 by year 7.
Expand ...

I don't think the penalties were severe enough, but watching you act as if you can predict the future is still fun.
 
.-.
WingU-Conn said:
I don't think the penalties were severe enough, but watching you act as if you can predict the future is still fun.
Expand ...

Do you ever make a post that is not attacking another poster? Do you ever simply talk football or basketball on this board?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
I would be shocked if the $60MM fine was not all inclusive.
Expand ...
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.
 
Butchy said:
Football made the school. They get to live in embarrassment for who knows how long.
Expand ...

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.
 
Butchy said:
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
Expand ...

$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.
 
.-.
brasssbonanzaa said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
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.
Expand ...

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
 
metsfan2323 said:
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.
Expand ...

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.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
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.
Expand ...
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.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,305
Messages
4,562,319
Members
10,457
Latest member
caw2


Top Bottom