The Penn State Aftermath Thread *Penalty Post #403*

[Rogah]

Just what the heck does that mean? Football is (customarily) the major revenue stream for any university participating in the sport. If the entire university administration was removed, it would still not be as harsh as killing the football program for a designated period of time. Just my two cents.

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here. Football tends to be the biggest revenue stream from the athletic department, but it's still peanuts compared to other revenue streams universities have.

 

[Rogah]

I see lawsuits coming from Penn State since this isn't going through the normal channels. I believe this is going to get even uglier if that's possible.

You're right that there hasn't been any formal NCAA investigation which is why I think the announcement will be some sort of punishment negotiated on and agree to by both the NCAA and the university.

 

[Rogah]

no TV for 5 years? So whatever TV network has Big 10 games will surely want to redo their contract don't you think? I wonder if there is anything in the contracts in case something like this happens.

Banning them from TV is just not a feasible solution at this level of competition. What if, God forbid, they were #3 playing #1 Ohio State in early November. Do you think the legions of NCAA fandom would be happy following that game on the internet?

 

[joseephuss]

Banning them from TV is just not a feasible solution at this level of competition. What if, God forbid, they were #3 playing #1 Ohio State in early November. Do you think the legions of NCAA fandom would be happy following that game on the internet?

Why would Ohio St be ranked #1? They suck. There have been several teams banned from TV appearances over the years.

 

[joseephuss]

Some speculation I've heard is that by rushing to make the announcement, the kids will have time to transfer out and get somewhere for this upcoming season.

http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/ncf...blog/ncfrecruiting/on-the-trail/post?id=16502

ESPN 150 defensive tackle Greg Webb (Erial, N.J./Timber Creek) decommitted from Penn State and is now on board with North Carolina. Additionally, his high school teammate, three-star defensive end Dajaun Drennon, also picked the Tar Heels.

Webb is the first recruit to drop Penn State since former Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges and the damaging release of the Freeh report

 

[Rogah]

Why would Ohio St be ranked #1? They suck. There have been several teams banned from TV appearances over the years.

Over the years it has happened, but in this day and age of multi-billion dollar TV contract for conferences, it just won't go over. You think ABC/ESPN would be happy paying billions to the Big 10 only to be told they can't broadcast game between 2 top-10 schools because Penn State is in it?

It hasn't happened since 1996 and it isn't going to happen here. Who was the last big time NCAA football program to be banned from TV? SMU from almost 30 years ago?

 

[Rogah]

http://insider.espn.go.com/blog/ncf...blog/ncfrecruiting/on-the-trail/post?id=16502

ESPN 150 defensive tackle Greg Webb (Erial, N.J./Timber Creek) decommitted from Penn State and is now on board with North Carolina. Additionally, his high school teammate, three-star defensive end Dajaun Drennon, also picked the Tar Heels.

Webb is the first recruit to drop Penn State since former Nittany Lions assistant coach Jerry Sandusky was found guilty on 45 of 48 charges and the damaging release of the Freeh report

I was thinking more along the lines of guys who were already there and whom I believe will get permission to transfer without sitting out a year. But you gave an excellent example here.

 

[joseephuss]

Over the years it has happened, but in this day and age of multi-billion dollar TV contract for conferences, it just won't go over. You think ABC/ESPN would be happy paying billions to the Big 10 only to be told they can't broadcast game between 2 top-10 schools because Penn State is in it?

It hasn't happened since 1996 and it isn't going to happen here. Who was the last big time NCAA football program to be banned from TV? SMU from almost 30 years ago?

I understand what you are saying. Networks might not like it, but the NCAA has to have some way to punish football programs that has some teeth to it. What is probably going to help to make a decision like that is no one can imagine Penn State being a top 10 team in the next couple of years. Miami may be facing some similar punishments of their own soon.

I would also think that the contracts have something written into them where the networks get money back if any of the teams fall under some sort of TV ban during that time period. While it hasn't happened in a while it has happened. I believe Auburn was the last team to get a TV ban.

 

[Rogah]

I understand what you are saying. Networks might not like it, but the NCAA has to have some way to punish football programs that has some teeth to it.

They do have such a manner: It's called banning them from playing for a year or 2 or 5. That's why, for almost 2 full decades now, we haven't seen any TV punishments. Teams have lost bowl games and lost scholarships, but not been banned from TV.

What is probably going to help to make a decision like that is no one can imagine Penn State being a top 10 team in the next couple of years. Miami may be facing some similar punishments of their own soon.

You can't make such a decision and then hope that they're not going to be a good team. Miami is certainly looking at being in some trouble but, like USC of last year or Ohio State of this year, they'll lose postseason play. They won't lose TV.

I would also think that the contracts have something written into them where the networks get money back if any of the teams fall under some sort of TV ban during that time period. While it hasn't happened in a while it has happened. I believe Auburn was the last team to get a TV ban.

You're supporting my point. You think the NCAA is going to want to give money back to the networks? No way.

As for the Auburn thing you mentioned, I have no idea what you're talking about so you'll have to be more specific for me to address that point.

 

[joseephuss]

They do have such a manner: It's called banning them from playing for a year or 2 or 5. That's why, for almost 2 full decades now, we haven't seen any TV punishments. Teams have lost bowl games and lost scholarships, but not been banned from TV.
You can't make such a decision and then hope that they're not going to be a good team. Miami is certainly looking at being in some trouble but, like USC of last year or Ohio State of this year, they'll lose postseason play. They won't lose TV.
You're supporting my point. You think the NCAA is going to want to give money back to the networks? No way.

As for the Auburn thing you mentioned, I have no idea what you're talking about so you'll have to be more specific for me to address that point.

"Who was the last big time NCAA football program to be banned from TV? SMU from almost 30 years ago?"

That is what you asked. Auburn under Terry Bowden was banned from TV in 1993. Auburn went undefeated that season. I don't know why I didn't remember it earlier, but Texas A&M received a similar TV ban in 1994.

I don't think anyone has to hope Penn St. is not a top 10 team this year. They aren't going to be. If none of this scandal happened, they weren't going to be a top 10 team this season.

So your point is that money is all that matters in this whole thing? I get it is important, but the NCAA has to be able to issue harsh punishments when needed even if it means a loss of money. And that doesn't matter if it is this case, the Miamie situation or anything down the line. If they can't lay down a harsh punishiment when warranted, then what is the point? And it wouldn't be the NCAA giving money back, it would be the Big 10 conference in this particular situation. Not that I think a TV ban is comiing, but it is a possiblity. From early accounts, it seems like a TV ban is almost inevitable for Miami.

 

[Rogah]

"Who was the last big time NCAA football program to be banned from TV? SMU from almost 30 years ago?"

That is what you asked. Auburn under Terry Bowden was banned from TV in 1993. Auburn went undefeated that season. I don't know why I didn't remember it earlier, but Texas A&M received a similar TV ban in 1994.

Hey I admit I didn't know about those. But I stand by my statement that it hasn't happened since 1996 and I think it's safe to say the college TV landscape has changed quite a bit over the past (almost) 20 years. You didn't have billions of dollars contracts back then like we do now.

I don't think anyone has to hope Penn St. is not a top 10 team this year. They aren't going to be. If none of this scandal happened, they weren't going to be a top 10 team this season.

You don't have the first clue what Penn State would have done had this never happened, and you look pretty silly for making such a declaration with such absolute confidence.

Before the entire program was thrown into complete disarray, Penn State had one of the best defenses in all of football last year and this year they had a recruiting class that some ranked as high as #15 in the country. They were ranked #12 when the crap hit the fan and the bottom fell out, losing 2 of their final 3. Plus we always see teams come from nowhere and fight their way into the top 10. Baylor started the season unranked last year.

Therefore it's silly to make any sort of punishment based on the hope that they just won't be all that good.

So your point is that money is all that matters in this whole thing?

No, my point is that justice is all that matters, which is why I'll be disappointed with anything less than a 2 year ban for the program.

 

[TwoDeep3]

I have a real issue with sanctions which will soon come down on Penn State.

Let me say that I am not a Penn State fan.

The problem I have is the young men who did grow up loving that University and dreaming of one day wearing their colors on the field now will not have that options if the rumors are true.

Criminal convictions of the men who abetted Sandusky and jail time of the most harshest measures would send a direct message to other people in high positions that cover up something this heinous.

But essentially killing a program - and look at SMU and how that program has been toes up since their death penalty - would forever take away this university's football.

Or at least ruined its competitiveness for the next three or four decades.

The people running the school did this. Not the school itself.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I have a real issue with sanctions which will soon come down on Penn State.

Let me say that I am not a Penn State fan.

The problem I have is the young men who did grow up loving that University and dreaming of one day wearing their colors on the field now will not have that options if the rumors are true.

Criminal convictions of the men who abetted Sandusky and jail time of the most harshest measures would send a direct message to other people in high positions that cover up something this heinous.

But essentially killing a program - and look at SMU and how that program has been toes up since their death penalty - would forever take away this university's football.

Or at least ruined its competitiveness for the next three or four decades.

The people running the school did this. Not the school itself.

Completely agree. No sense in punishing those who weren't involved at all.

 

[joseephuss]

Hey I admit I didn't know about those. But I stand by my statement that it hasn't happened since 1996 and I think it's safe to say the college TV landscape has changed quite a bit over the past (almost) 20 years. You didn't have billions of dollars contracts back then like we do now.
You don't have the first clue what Penn State would have done had this never happened, and you look pretty silly for making such a declaration with such absolute confidence.

Before the entire program was thrown into complete disarray, Penn State had one of the best defenses in all of football last year and this year they had a recruiting class that some ranked as high as #15 in the country. They were ranked #12 when the crap hit the fan and the bottom fell out, losing 2 of their final 3. Plus we always see teams come from nowhere and fight their way into the top 10. Baylor started the season unranked last year.

Therefore it's silly to make any sort of punishment based on the hope that they just won't be all that good.
No, my point is that justice is all that matters, which is why I'll be disappointed with anything less than a 2 year ban for the program.

Are you talking about a 2 year "death penalty" type ban? Or just bowl games and scholarships? If you are talking death penalty, then I am confused. How is that different from a TV ban? It would still cost TV networks lots of money not being able to show PSU play games since they wouldn't be playing. It is essentially the same thing.

I didn't say they would base the punishsment on them being good or not. I said it could be a reason. One of many, but that doesn't mean it has to be a top reason. Them possibly being good also should not be a top reason to not punish them with a TV ban as you seem to imply with your example of networks not wanting to miss out on a game between two top teams. I can see the quality of the team being a factor in the decision making, but I doubt it is the highest factor.

Maybe you think I am being silly, but I watched PSU play and they don't look like a top 10 program to me. You may think my confidence is silly, but it is what I think. They did not have a top 15 recruiting class this past February. Rivals had them ranked #51. Their next recruiting class(2013) was ranked #15 recently, but none of those guys have signed the dotted line yet. It is all verbal committments so far. As I already linked in this thread, one of their guys has already chosen another school. That ranking will fluctuate.

 

[joseephuss]

Completely agree. No sense in punishing those who weren't involved at all.

Isn't that something that applies to most schools that get punished by the NCAA? The ones that made the mess are gone and the ones left behind usually pay the price.

 

[Rogah]

I have a real issue with sanctions which will soon come down on Penn State.

Let me say that I am not a Penn State fan.

The problem I have is the young men who did grow up loving that University and dreaming of one day wearing their colors on the field now will not have that options if the rumors are true.

Criminal convictions of the men who abetted Sandusky and jail time of the most harshest measures would send a direct message to other people in high positions that cover up something this heinous.

But essentially killing a program - and look at SMU and how that program has been toes up since their death penalty - would forever take away this university's football.

Or at least ruined its competitiveness for the next three or four decades.

The people running the school did this. Not the school itself.

I understand what you're saying, but fact is that anytime the NCAA punishes a universiy for violations, that is the one of the results. Should the NCAA stop sanctioning schools because of how it affects little kids who one day dream of playing for that school? It's simply not realstic to give universities a free pass because anytime you punish a university it will adversely affect the ons who are already there or the ones who hope to go these someday.

 

[burmafrd]

Completely agree. No sense in punishing those who weren't involved at all.

just another excuse to do nothing which is what you want anyway; your agenda is all too clear

Just another PSU apologist

 

[DallasEast]

No TV or bowl appearances for say 5 years may be more harsh than having no football program for one single season. Throw in a reduction in scholarships over that same time period and it could be very difficult to bring in quality players. Would you take one thrown away season over 5 lackluster seasons? Both types of penalties are going to hurt you in the long run as well.

I think the difference will be, which type of penalty hurts the conference the least. The death penalty that SMU received hurt the SWC as well. Teams had to scramble to find replacement teams to put on the schedule. The death penalty influenced and accelerated Arkansas' decision to leave the conference.

No football is no football. And I didn't specify a timeframe involving no football. I'm still curious what a "harsher" penalty could be.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

just another excuse to do nothing which is what you want anyway; your agenda is all too clear

Just another PSU apologist

An excuse to do nothing?

lol.. i don't even know what you're implying by that. Certainly, they are going to do something, but punishing people who had nothing to do with it is stupid.

..and its got nothing to do with PSU. If i found out that some higher ups at whatever company you work for had engaged in this sort of behavior and the result was going to be that you were fired along with all of them, even though you had nothing to do with it, i'd say that was stupid as well.


In related news.. you following me around the board claiming some "agenda" after every post i make, that you never actually get into specifics about, is getting quite old and asinine. Give it a rest, burm.

 

[Rogah]

Are you talking about a 2 year "death penalty" type ban? Or just bowl games and scholarships? If you are talking death penalty, then I am confused. How is that different from a TV ban? It would still cost TV networks lots of money not being able to show PSU play games since they wouldn't be playing. It is essentially the same thing.

I'm saying they should suspend the entire football program for (at least) 2 years. I think a TV ban would be a disaster in this day and age because what if Penn State was having a top-10 season and were playing another top-10 team? Ya think college football fans would be happy missing out on #3 PSU versus #1 OSU if they played in early November? No, people would be really upset. And I reject any statement that claims "Penn State won't be good enough to field a team playing important games" because we have no idea whether that is true and the NCAA can't create a punishment and then hope the team stinks.

Maybe you think I am being silly, but I watched PSU play and they don't look like a top 10 program to me.

Maybe we were watching different Penn States, or you're employing selective memory, because prior to the scandal breaking out they were one of the best defenses in football.

Before Paterno was fired, their sole loss was to eventual national champion Alabama and they rose to #12 in the rankings. If they had beaten Nebraska they would have definitely cracked into the top 10 and that's a game they lost by only 3 points, which is pretty impressive considering that was the week Paterno was fired and all hell was breaking loose.