The Penn State Aftermath Thread *Penalty Post #403*

[Rogah]

I just needed another set of eyes on it because it started becoming very blurry after a while.

I still come up with 90. The cut down from 25 new scholarships to 15 begins in 2013 and last through 2017. The limitation of 65 total scholarships doesn't start until 2014 and runs through 2017. So 10 in 2013 and then 80 more over the following 4 years.

Before I respond, I would like to correct a typographical error I made. Penn State loses 20 a year starting in 2014, not 2013. I edited my post but couldn't edit your response to my post so I just wanted to clarify that. Anyways, here's a year by year breakdown why it is 80 and not 90....

2012: Penn State's scholarship status is not affected this year. Players are allowed to leave but, technically speaking, Penn State still has the same 85 scholarship limit with 25 initial scholarships allowed.

2013: Penn State has lost 10 initial scholarships leaving them with 15, but they still have their full overall allotment of 85 scholarships. That means they can only bring in 15 new players, but they can still give out a total of 85 scholarships so they still haven't lost any scholarships. Now, realistically speaking, they may not necessarily use all 85 because if more than 15 players leave after 2012, they won't be able to replace those players. But technically speaking they still have all 85 scholarships available to use.

2014, 2015, 2016: They still lose 10 initial scholarships, meaning they can only bring in 15 new players per year, but now they've lost 20 scholarships, meaning they can only have 65 scholarship players instead of 85. Again, realistically speaking, if they can only bring in 15 per year, they may not be able to fill their allotment of 65. But, technically speaking, they are allocated 65 scholarships during this 3 year period which is a loss of 20 each year.

2017: They now have their initial scholarship limit returned to 25, so they can bring in 25 new players. However, the total allocation remains at 65, so this is their 4th year of having lost 20 scholarships.

*WHEW!* Anyways, in conclusion, 4 x 20 = 80 NOTE: I'm learning a lot of this stuff as the day progresses, and I've been wrong with some of the things I said earlier, but what I've presented here is my best attempt of understanding it. Don't be surprised if 10 minutes from now I change my statements again!

 

[burmafrd]

I see Roy is still claiming he is not defending Paterno.

 

[burmafrd]

65 schollies means 20 less then anyone else they are playing. That is a huge difference especially as the years go by.

How many quality recruits are they going to get the next couple of years?

How many of their top recruits of this year are they going to keep?

By 2016 this program will be in the basement.

 

[joseephuss]

Before I respond, I would like to correct a typographical error I made. Penn State loses 20 a year starting in 2014, not 2013. I edited my post but couldn't edit your response to my post so I just wanted to clarify that. Anyways, here's a year by year breakdown why it is 80 and not 90....

2012: Penn State's scholarship status is not affected this year. Players are allowed to leave but, technically speaking, Penn State still has the same 85 scholarship limit with 25 initial scholarships allowed.

2013: Penn State has lost 10 initial scholarships leaving them with 15, but they still have their full overall allotment of 85 scholarships. That means they can only bring in 15 new players, but they can still give out a total of 85 scholarships so they still haven't lost any scholarships. Now, realistically speaking, they may not necessarily use all 85 because if more than 15 players leave after 2012, they won't be able to replace those players. But technically speaking they still have all 85 scholarships available to use.

2014, 2015, 2016: They still lose 10 initial scholarships, meaning they can only bring in 15 new players per year, but now they've lost 20 scholarships, meaning they can only have 65 scholarship players instead of 85. Again, realistically speaking, if they can only bring in 15 per year, they may not be able to fill their allotment of 65. But, technically speaking, they are allocated 65 scholarships during this 3 year period which is a loss of 20 each year.

2017: They now have their initial scholarship limit returned to 25, so they can bring in 25 new players. However, the total allocation remains at 65, so this is their 4th year of having lost 20 scholarships.

*WHEW!* Anyways, in conclusion, 4 x 20 = 80

Thanks, that is a very good breakdown.

I do disagree with you on 2013. I think it can be interpreted as they are essentially limited to 75 total scholarships that year even if it is not explicity worded as such. To me if you are reducing new scholarships by 10(from 25 down to 15), you are going down from a possible 85 scholarships down to 75.

Either way, 80 or 90 is still more than the 40 that was being thrown around.

 

[Rogah]

65 schollies means 20 less then anyone else they are playing.

Only 17 fewer than Ohio State.

 

[Rogah]

Thanks, that is a very good breakdown.

I do disagree with you on 2013. I think it can be interpreted as they are essentially limited to 75 total scholarships that year even if it is not explicity worded as such. To me if you are reducing new scholarships by 10(from 25 down to 15), you are going down from a possible 85 scholarships down to 75.

I know some student-athletes are going to be leaving Penn State in the coming days, but suppose after all is said and done they have 85 scholarship-athletes in 2012. If only 15 of those 85 guys leave after 2012, then Penn State can offer 15 new players incoming scholarships, and still have 85 full scholarship players in 2013.

Like I said, realistically speaking they will probably lose more players than they are able to replace, so they will probably not have 85 scholarship athletes in 2013. But they are still being permitted to have 85 scholarship athletes in 2013 so technically they haven't lost any scholarships for 2013.

 

[DWhite Fan]

I don't care how many scholarships Penn State lost, that program should have received the "Death Penalty!" The powers that be at that school allowed the molestation to continue to protect their "cash cow" football program. The NCAA just declared S.M.U.'s actions in the late '80s worse than Penn State's. How pathetic! The NCAA will never give the death penalty to a top tier school. It is all about money and always has been, even to the point of sacrificing innocent children...

 

[Concord]

Only 17 fewer than Ohio State.

:chainsaw:

 

[RoyTheHammer]

I'm just going by Freeh's report.

Do you know if they did?

Not at all.. was just asking the question. Did Freeh's report say that at no time over the years or after that incident did any of those 4 men talk to Sandusky about the accusations? That'd be kind of a difficult thing to conclude wouldn't it?

 

[burmafrd]

Not at all.. was just asking the question. Did Freeh's report say that at no time over the years or after that incident did any of those 4 men talk to Sandusky about the accusations? That'd be kind of a difficult thing to conclude wouldn't it?

So Joe was blind and deaf and dumb then?

 

[RoyTheHammer]

Yes it does.

Because you would have to be a fool to believe that OJ did not do it and have the same foolish, stubborn belief of the jury to think that OJ was innocent. Not only that, part of the reason OJ was found not guilty is the jury probably did not want another Rodney King style riots which crippled the city of LA.

Was Rae Carruth convicted?

Hey, no actual proof he paid people to kill his wife and unborn child. Just things like evidence and facts which could lead to people, particularly experienced law enforcement, to conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that Carruth was guilty.




OJ was found with blood in his Bronco matching DNA evidence. But, we have no real proof that he was actually at the crime scene and never discovered the murder weapon. Is that a reasonable conclusion to draw? Sure. Do we know that's what OJ did?

I guess not in your book.



No, Paterno just never said a thing about it since 1998. Not to mention the stockpile of evidence that Freeh had from handwritten notes to millions of e-mails. I tend to trust a man who was a US District Court judge and a Director of the FBI to have the mountain of evidence and come up an accurate conclusion of what really happened.



No, Paterno did not.

Schultz is a beancounter. He does NOT have legal arresting authority in the state of Pennsylvania. He was there to oversee the budge of many departments, one of which was the State College Police Department. And according to those who have spoken about him, he does not even have the authority to hire or fire people in the State College PD.

It's essentially like going to the accountant of a police department to report a crime.



It's not out of character. Dr. Vicky Triponey was not allowed to discipline Penn State football players when they got into fights with normal students while she served as Chief Disciplinarian at the school. When she pressed the matter further, she was told that Paterno said that he would stop all fundraising until he got his way and eventually forced Triponey out of the school. And she has e-mail proof of this happening.

In 2008, ESPN questioned Paterno over the arrest of 46 different football players (and IIRC, one of whom assaulted and undercover cop) along with the 163 counts that were brought forth against them since 2002. That's an average of about 8 players and 27 counts per year.

What was Paterno's response?

He claimed it was a 'witch hunt' and walked off in a huff.

What was Paterno's response when the Sandusky story and his coverup broke?

A 'witch hunt' and walked off in a huff.

This was NOT out of character. It's completely IN CHARACTER with who the person Joe Paterno was. He made sure to protect his players from being punished by Dr. Triponey, just like he made sure to paint Penn State as the victim when 46 different players were arrested in a 5-year span in the so call 'squeeky clean' football program.



It's not nonsense because you have continued to insult our intelligence with your own nonsense. And the reality is that it is clear that you honestly think that Paterno did nothing wrong and is being railroaded, you just don't want to say that in order to save face.

You have tried to protest Paterno's innocence, then trivialized his role, claim that people here would have done the same thing, and now are arguing a report conducted by a man who was a Director of the FBI for 10 years all the while denying the fact that there is proof that Paterno would go as far as to stop fundraising if he couldn't 'discipline' unruly players himself.

First of all, no one thinks OJ didn't do it. All i said was legally, the case didn't hold up.

Secondly, im not arguing anything about the Freeh report other than there was no evidence to prove that Joe Paterno was involved in a cover up.. even though there was evidence to prove that Curley, Shultz, and Spanier were. Including Paterno in that group was the opinion of Freeh based on one, inconclusive email.

That's all.. take that information however you'd like it. Clearly, you have a different interpretation of it than i do. Its to be expected.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

So Joe was blind and deaf and dumb then?

Oh, hello burmafrd.

I don't believe Joe (Paterno?) was blind, deaf, or dumb.

I was simply asking the question if any of the 4 men talked about in the Freeh report had ever gone to Sandusky and asked him about the incident.

Do you know the answer to that question, by any chance?

 

[WV Cowboy]

It's not nonsense because you have continued to insult our intelligence with your own nonsense. And the reality is that it is clear that you honestly think that Paterno did nothing wrong and is being railroaded, you just don't want to say that in order to save face.

You have tried to protest Paterno's innocence, then trivialized his role, claim that people here would have done the same thing, and now are arguing a report conducted by a man who was a Director of the FBI for 10 years all the while denying the fact that there is proof that Paterno would go as far as to stop fundraising if he couldn't 'discipline' unruly players himself.

Very good read, .. I agree.

 

[03EBZ06]

Not at all.. was just asking the question. Did Freeh's report say that at no time over the years or after that incident did any of those 4 men talk to Sandusky about the accusations? That'd be kind of a difficult thing to conclude wouldn't it?

There was no mention of those four men ever discussing rumors or what McQueary witnessed with Sandusky. I guess if there is a trial of remaining three, maybe they can shed light on it but as of now, from what I have read, none ever talked to Sandusky about it and not one have stated that have they talked to Sandusky about allegations and what McQueary witnessed.

 

[WV Cowboy]

By 2016 this program will be in the basement.

We can only hope.

 

[Joe Realist]

One thing to me is clear today and I bet many share this opinon - I do not want to hear anymore statements from the Paterno famliy. Enough. Slip away already.

 

[CanadianCowboysFan]

The penalties are fine except for the stripping of the wins. You cannot just erase wins and it is ridiculous given the alleged cover up didn't help the team win on the field.

 

[RoyTheHammer]

We can only hope.

Why would you hope that? This is the kind of stuff i don't understand.. the people that you blame arn't there anymore, yet you still want others who were innocent to suffer?

What sense does it make to victimize more innocent people in this situation?

 

[burmafrd]

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/coll...aa-penn-state-punishment-sanctions/56427630/1

Says 40 here

It's 85 to 65 over the probation period. Teams don't have 85 scholarships EVERY YEAR!

85 is the limit you have each year and most teams are very close to that number. Some coaches keep a couple in their pockets so if a walkon really shines they can give them a schollie.

 

[burmafrd]

Why would you hope that? This is the kind of stuff i don't understand.. the people that you blame arn't there anymore, yet you still want others who were innocent to suffer?

What sense does it make to victimize more innocent people in this situation?

so we never punnish a school is your basic reasoning.