Should Penn State get the death penalty?

• bigkahuna

  That's quite a bit. A year's worth football revenue...wow.
• OneBuckeye

  

  SportsAndLady;1231423 wrote:$60M fine
  4 years Bowl Ban
  Scholly's reduced from 25 to 15 for 4 years
  Any current scholarship players can transfer and play immediately
  All wins from '98 to '11 will be vacated
  5 year probation
  Individuals can be hit w/ punishments if necessary.
  
  Dang

  Slap on the wrist IMO
• bigkahuna

  Yea, besides the money, it doesn't seem that bad
• WebFire

  10 schollies for 4 years is a pretty big deal.
• Con_Alma

  WebFire;1231434 wrote:10 schollies for 4 years is a pretty big deal.

  Especially when combined with kids being able to leave AND kids being able to stay on scholly and not play.
• bigkahuna

  WebFire;1231434 wrote:10 schollies for 4 years is a pretty big deal.

  I was being sarcastic. I don't about OneB, but I was.
• ts1227

  

  The vacated wins part is just retarded.
• OneBuckeye

  

  WebFire;1231434 wrote:10 schollies for 4 years is a pretty big deal.

  I agree, but they could probably still be better than half the big 10 if they could recruit. The bowl ban really makes that hard to do.
• WebFire

  ts1227;1231450 wrote:The vacated wins part is just retarded.

  I kind of agree with that.
• isadore

  ts1227;1231450 wrote:The vacated wins part is just retarded.

  takes old joe out of the record book, and it starts with the year the coverup began
  totally fair and justified.
• WebFire

  isadore;1231453 wrote:takes old joe out of the record book, and it starts with the year the coverup began
  totally fair and justified.

  That's what I'm thinking. It's the only way they could punish the dead guy.
• WebFire

  I do find it interesting there is no TV ban.
• OneBuckeye

  

  WebFire;1231457 wrote:I do find it interesting there is no TV bad.

  impossible, who would play them?
• Fab1b

  

  WebFire;1231457 wrote:I do find it interesting there is no TV bad.

  
  This isn't the 80's no way they can prevent their opponent from being televised especially at home!
• WebFire

  Fab1b;1231475 wrote:This isn't the 80's no way they can prevent their opponent from being televised especially at home!

  Doesn't have to be a total ban.
• ts1227

  

  Fab1b;1231475 wrote:This isn't the 80's no way they can prevent their opponent from being televised especially at home!

  
  Why not? The NCAA doesn't owe the fans a damn thing
• WebFire

  Fab1b;1231475 wrote:This isn't the 80's no way they can prevent their opponent from being televised especially at home!

  Or just ban them from profiting from TV.
• Fly4Fun

  

  Ya, but the NCAA has to remember, they only have as much power as the institutions give them. If they have a TV ban that really pisses off all of the opponent teams on the schedule. In a time of relative flux with all the discussion of "Super Conferences" and possible scenarios of leaving the NCAA behind. They probably don't want to overreach here.
• Pick6

  

  Looks like the title of winning-est football coach goes to the Bowden family again
• ts1227

  

  Pick6;1231495 wrote:Looks like the title of winning-est football coach goes to the Bowden family again

  
  The bad part is Bobby Bowden teams were in legal and/or NCAA trouble all of the time, but the punishments weren't as harsh then
• se-alum

  

  LJ;1231403 wrote:Because it sets a precedent that could be a slippery slope. I don't care about PSU, they deserve what they get, but this could change the whole landscape of college athletics in the long run.

  This is my problem with it. This basically opens it up to the NCAA to levy punishments against a sports programs based on the actions of an athletic program employee, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with gaining an competitive advantage.
• Pick6

  

  se-alum;1231508 wrote:This is my problem with it. This basically opens it up to the NCAA to levy punishments against a sports programs based on the actions of an athletic program employee, regardless of whether or not it had anything to do with gaining an competitive advantage.

  I disagree. If the problem were reported when it was made aware, I dont see the NCAA doing anything. The cover up is why Penn State is getting this.
• WebFire

  Pick6;1231511 wrote:I disagree. If the problem were reported when it was made aware, I dont see the NCAA doing anything. The cover up is why Penn State is getting this.

  And to further that, I think it DID have an impact on competitive advantage.
• se-alum

  

  WebFire;1231519 wrote:And to further that, I think it DID have an impact on competitive advantage.

  The only competitive advantage I see is maybe the one year Sandusky coached after the initial investigation in 1998. I've heard some say that players would've transferred or committed to other schools had they known about Sandusky, but there's no way to say definitively that it would've happened. I don't think you can say something is a competitive advantage without being able to actually prove it would've happened.
• OneBuckeye

  

  In a strange twist, now Penn State's last win had Mike McQueary at QB.
  
  And I agree with webfire. It did have a huge impact on competitive advantage. Being able to sell "the penn state way" and JoePA to recruits is huge.