Posted by AlCheez on 7/24/2012 9:27:00 AM (view original):
Posted by jimmystick on 7/23/2012 10:26:00 PM (view original):Since NCAA overstepped their bounds to even do what they did, no.
I was going to bump this today; I saw somebody else did already. Anybody else disapointed the PSU punishment wasn't more severe? I thought they deserved minimum 4 years with no football games whatsoever. I'd have given them 10
Penn State just got clobbered by an organization whose jurisidiction in the matter was highly dubious, without anything resembling due process, before all the authorities that did clearly have a place in the matter had completed their due process.
I don't care if Penn State ever wins or even plays a football game again, and they deserve everything that has and will come to them from the authorities that are meant to deal with these kind of situation, but this is just the NCAA grandstanding so they can pretend they are doing something about the way football dominates the culture at schools like Penn State.
I'm not sure how I feel about the NCAA stepping in. There's definitely a "lack of institutional control" involved, but I'm not really sure if it falls within the spirit of what the NCAA intended for how that phrase was meant to be applied. It's a gray area, since the coverup was meant to protect the reputation of the school AND the football program. But the NCAA had the unique "advantage" of being able to move in and issue this beatdown knowing that PSU really wouldn't (or couldn't) challenge any punishments without looking like a bunch of douchebags.
That said, I was good with the $60m fine and probably would have been good if it had been higher ($100m - $120m), provided that the money gets used for what Emmert indicated yesterday. I'm also good with the vacating of 14 years worth of wins. And I'm good with the five years probation, though I think that's probably the least damaging sanction that was handed down - this scandal aside, PSU athletics have always been above reproach (as far as I know).
The four years of no post-season and bowls, and the four seasons of reduced scholarships, I'm having some trouble with. That seems excessive. It seems that is only punishing those who are left behind, who are completely innocent of any wrongdoing, so I'm not sure what the purpose is. Some could say that it's punishing the University, but seeing that all those responsible for the wrong-doings are already either dead, convicted, or fired and awating criminal prosecution, I'm not sure why further punishment is necessary.
I could understand it if the PSU Board of Trustees dragged it's feet in removing those responsible for the coverup, as if they were denying that things really were as bad as they turned out to be. Then such severe future sanctions could be justified. But they acted swiftly in removing those involved (Paterno, Spanier, Curley and Shultz) last November; so quickly that I thought it might have been an overreaction, rush-to-judgement at the time (we can see now that it wasn't).
I think two years might have been more appropriate than four.