How severe should NCAA punishments be?

[GrizMusician]

Penn State received what what considered the most severe punishment handed down by the NCAA in history. Granted, the crimes committed were severe, but it begs the question: With Sandusky imprisoned, Paterno dead, & most of the original staff gone - Who is the NCAA really punishing?

I agree that Sandusky received a fitting punishment, but with the majority of those guilty being gone from the program, why does the NCAA see fit to punish the students?

I do not feel that the sanctions handed down by the NCAA were fair, nor do I feel that they impacted those who were really guilty.

IMO, I believe that the NCAA needs to begin handing down sanctions on a case by case basis. If the coaching staff or student athlete was responsible or negligent - they should be banned from all NCAA activities indefinitely. If a school wants to hire that staff member or recruit that student, the school would become ineligible while the individual was on the roster or staff. Essentially, any NCAA rule that an individual maliciously or intentionally violated should be handed the NCAA death card & be banned from all NCAA activities. The school should be fined & they should lose all bowl game money, but I do not believe that punishing the students not responsible by banning them from bowl games or conference championships altogether is the right move.

Discuss.

 

[tnt]

It seems to me that they accomplished two things, they took away the profit that PSU made. And they made sure Paterno and all involved lost any "record" they had.

The Kids still get their education, they still get to play, they lose one game a year (a bowl game)

The punishment certainly effects the kids but appropriately takes the PROGRAM back a few steps and certainly no worse than where they would have been had they NOT put the program first.

I think the loss of conference championships is the only part really unfair.

 

[GrizMusician]

It seems to me that they accomplished two things, they took away the profit that PSU made. And they made sure Paterno and all involved lost any "record" they had.

The Kids still get their education, they still get to play, they lose one game a year (a bowl game)

The punishment certainly effects the kids but appropriately takes the PROGRAM back a few steps and certainly no worse than where they would have been had they NOT put the program first.

I think the loss of conference championships is the only part really unfair.

I feel like the kids should be able to play their conference championship & bowl game, but the school should have to surrender all money made from those games. That way the kids are essentially unaffected, but the school won't gain from a monetary standpoint.

 

[Pin2Win]

The difference between this set of sanctions and many of the other well known ones is that PSU's did not have very much, if anything, to do with what was happening with the product on the field. USC's punishment from Reggie Bush and others was a result of monetary benefits, etc. for current players. Ohio State's was similar. Florida State's cheating scandle in the past aided in keeping athletes eligible. All these things were be factors that would sway recruits decisions in choosing a school or what happens at the school. So in those cases, scholarships reductions, vacating wins, etc. was relevant.

The NCAA should have come down very harshly on the athletic department and university in forms of fines, etc. Your idea of taking away any profits is a good one. The current sanctions will hurt PSU signifcantly in the pocketbook, but I don't think directly punishing the kids that provide the revenue is appropriate.

 

[BWahlberg]

I think the NCAA is stuck with how effective they can be so they over-reach and punish the program going forward because it's their best "threat" for programs to keep their noses clean.

In the case of Penn St, the financial fines make sense, the loss of conference revenue makes sense, the vacating of the wins certainly makes sense.

The schollie reduction seems pretty long, unprescedented I believe. I understand a punishment of a few scholarships but the loss of 10 per year for 4 years for a school in one of the most competitive conferences in all of football is a death sentence in it's own.

The 4 year post season ban is very heavy-handed, I get this is a big part of the NCAA's "stick" that they use to hit teams with, but 4 years, that's a whole class. You've got 18 and 19 year old kids on that team right now that will never play in a bowl game or a conference championship - and they had nothing to do with any of Penn St's problems.

 

[i do love the griz]

it seems stupid to vacate all the wins. i mean the games are already played, and the video shows they won...

 

[funny water]

it seems stupid to vacate all the wins. i mean the games are already played, and the video shows they won...

This! i agree with the financial penalties and reductions of scholarships but don't agree with the vacating of wins....

 

[garizzalies]

the ncaa did not want JoePa regarded to be the "winningest coach of all time." Now Bowden has that title.

there was one game that PSU had to forfeit which was already forfeited by the other team. I think it was vs. OSU.

 

[Cats2506]

I think the NCAA is stuck with how effective they can be so they over-reach and punish the program going forward because it's their best "threat" for programs to keep their noses clean.

In the case of Penn St, the financial fines make sense, the loss of conference revenue makes sense, the vacating of the wins certainly makes sense.

The schollie reduction seems pretty long, unprescedented I believe. I understand a punishment of a few scholarships but the loss of 10 per year for 4 years for a school in one of the most competitive conferences in all of football is a death sentence in it's own.

The 4 year post season ban is very heavy-handed, I get this is a big part of the NCAA's "stick" that they use to hit teams with, but 4 years, that's a whole class. You've got 18 and 19 year old kids on that team right now that will never play in a bowl game or a conference championship - and they had nothing to do with any of Penn St's problems.

those kids are free to leave if they want to play for bowl games or championships.

the NCAA has to come down hard in order to change the mindset of the coaches, administration and boosters.

I don't really like it either but continuing to allow them to play at a competitive level would not result in any changes to the culture of the program, that is what the NCAA is trying to change.

 

[trouthunter]

In the age of the internet, what is the point of vacating wins? I am not being flippant, I am asking a serious question.

Those who matter most, the players, know the score at the end of the game. After the media hoopla dies down there will always be some sort of record that the team won on the field but the win was "taken away" in the future.

Sent from my DROID2 GLOBAL

 

[jagur1]

I think the NCAA is stuck with how effective they can be so they over-reach and punish the program going forward because it's their best "threat" for programs to keep their noses clean.

In the case of Penn St, the financial fines make sense, the loss of conference revenue makes sense, the vacating of the wins certainly makes sense.

The schollie reduction seems pretty long, unprescedented I believe. I understand a punishment of a few scholarships but the loss of 10 per year for 4 years for a school in one of the most competitive conferences in all of football is a death sentence in it's own.

The 4 year post season ban is very heavy-handed, I get this is a big part of the NCAA's "stick" that they use to hit teams with, but 4 years, that's a whole class. You've got 18 and 19 year old kids on that team right now that will never play in a bowl game or a conference championship - and they had nothing to do with any of Penn St's problems.

those kids are free to leave if they want to play for bowl games or championships.

the NCAA has to come down hard in order to change the mindset of the coaches, administration and boosters.

I don't really like it either but continuing to allow them to play at a competitive level would not result in any changes to the culture of the program, that is what the NCAA is trying to change.

That all sounds good, but it's a load. Mark Emmert when chancellor at LSU was constantly saying that a strong football program is vital for LSU. We all know the culture of the SEC.

 

[mtgrizrule]

If, the NCAA is serious about cleaning up programs, the SEC needs to be thoroughly investigated. I doubt any program, anywhere, will have anything as disturbing as Penn State, but a lot of ugly things would come out, with most the SEC programs.

I believe, there is not a completely clean program in all of DIV 1 football, BCS, and FCS.

 

[kemajic]

the ncaa did not want JoePa regarded to be the "winningest coach of all time." Now Bowden has that title.

Because Bowden was pure as the driven snow, right?

 

[kemajic]

If, the NCAA is serious about cleaning up programs, the SEC needs to be thoroughly investigated. I doubt any program, anywhere, will have anything as disturbing as Penn State, but a lot of ugly things would come out, with most the SEC programs.

I believe, there is not a completely clean program in all of DIV 1 football, BCS, and FCS.

In a showdown with the SEC, the NCAA would lose.

 

[YttriumGriz39]

If, the NCAA is serious about cleaning up programs, the SEC needs to be thoroughly investigated. I doubt any program, anywhere, will have anything as disturbing as Penn State, but a lot of ugly things would come out, with most the SEC programs.

I believe, there is not a completely clean program in all of DIV 1 football, BCS, and FCS.

In a showdown with the SEC, the NCAA would lose.

How would they lose?

 

[kemajic]

If, the NCAA is serious about cleaning up programs, the SEC needs to be thoroughly investigated. I doubt any program, anywhere, will have anything as disturbing as Penn State, but a lot of ugly things would come out, with most the SEC programs.

I believe, there is not a completely clean program in all of DIV 1 football, BCS, and FCS.

In a showdown with the SEC, the NCAA would lose.

How would they lose?

The BCS members have been on edge of NCAA membership for years. Have you noticed what the NCAA has had to say about the rampant conf. changes that are clearly not for the good of the conferences? Nothing; they have no seat at the table. They can regulate a single school, particularly if the evidence is clear, but watch what happens if they were to try it with the most powerful conference. The BCS does not have to belong to the NCAA; the NCAA is on thin ice to maintain even their regulatory role.