The only part of the sanctions that I like.. that the 60 million dollar fine is going towards assistance in supporting the prevention of cases like this.

That and the vacating of the wins.. however that really means little other than fluffy record book stuff.

But if the NCAA doesn't think that this is going to trickle down to the students of Penn State and the taxpayers of PA they are ignorant.

Revenues are going to be severely reduced for the football program.. which per the NCAA (if we believe them) are used to fund other sports programs and overall tuition fees. So if that money disappears.. whom does it effect? Ahh.. the students of course... or the tax payers of the state to recoup the reduced revenue.

Scholarship reduction truly affects students.. not much more than that.. other than the quality of the team itself.



I have to laugh though at the Ed Ray reference to the NCAA core values.. of fairness and respect. This is the same panel that supports the sham that is currently the football BCS format and now this end all be all of the 4 team playoff.

The NCAA and the conferences.. these dog and pony show types like Emmert and Ray.. they give only a shit about the overall revenues that they pull into the NCAA and that fill the high ranking officers at the NCAA and Conference levels that have milked the system for hundreds of millions a year.

60 Million dollars in gross revenue per a caliber school like Penn State.. seriously.. and they only trickle down budget tight stipends to the players generating that revenue. And that is to be viewed as fair?

Bullshit.

These bastards are the poster boys for putting sports ahead of academics.. or more like putting their pocketbooks from their ivory towers ahead of the student athletes supporting their existence.

This was a PR move.. nothing more.. to protect the integrity of their cash cow.


Mark Emmert Annual Salary for instance.. 1.6m per year. Per 2010 Tax records.

A little more.. averaging out the total revenue taking in by top 30 programs.. 11.48% of all revenues are used for Scholarships.. 32.46 % to the coaches.. but in those other expenses (you know buried in with travel expenses) are those executives, conference dues and NCAA contributions.... 31.64% . Buildings and Grounds make the remaining percentage of 15.61.. the remainder is net profit.

Edited by user Monday, July 23, 2012 1:01:51 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

First, I don't really know all the details to this, but it seems odd to me how this punishment was levied so harshly to Penn State. I agree with the 98-2011 wins being removed, the four year bowl ban, but the 60 million dollar fine doesn't make much sense to me.

WOW! I just looked this up to get more information to base an opinion on and came across this. "NCAA president Mark Emmert didn't punish former president Graham Spanier, former athletic director Tim Curley or former vice president Gary Schultz at all during Monday's dog-and-pony-show press conference in Indianapolis."


Sandusky, Paterno, Curley and Schultz are the ones who should be punished.

1. The 60 million is there because the NCAA wants it to hurt where administrators and those who pay them are going to feel the pain, in pocketbook-decisions. Taking scholarships away, taking bowl games away, those aren't going to be felt by current administrators -- they'll just be able to blame the NCAA, after all. But a 60 million hit on the revenue side -- that means they are going to have to make a lot more visible decisions about a lot of funds. Whether it's in tuition increases, non-athletic-program cuts, or just uncomfortable questions from Pennsylvania legislators and their budget committees, the 60 million fine is going to be felt more personally by the successors to Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno. And that is what the NCAA/Big Ten wants.

(Now whether a mere 60 million is actually big enough to make things felt for the muckety-mucks at big-budget schools like PSU, that's another question. Part of the reason higher ed is in such straits today is that 60 million is actually relatively small potatoes for the bigger schools. It would bankrupt a school like mine, but the typical Big Ten university that annually spends well over a billion dollars? Belt-tightening, yes. Disaster? Maybe, maybe not.)

2. Didn't Emmert say something to the effect that the NCAA may still impose other sanctions after the criminal litigation runs its course re: Curley, Schultz, and, presumably, Spanier? As for Sandusky, I'm not sure, but he is being punsished about as severely short of a actual death penalty (does Pennsylvania have one for this sort of offense?) as he could be. I suppose the state of Pennsylvania could try some ex post facto confiscation of his wealth, but that would be, IMO, about as unconstitutional and unlawful as it gets: you don't get to change the rules of punishment for a crime for past crimes, no matter how heinous they are. And as for Paterno, he's beyond earthly punishment now and I'm not sure how much more can be done to trash his reputation than has already been done.

I'm pretty sure I heard on the radio (WTMJ) shortly after this broke that they would make a determination about sanctions against individual people now. When you think about it though, the NCAA really doesn't have power to punish individuals that aren't involved with athletic programs... This is 100% on the college to get rid of anybody that was involved with this crap.

Expect between 10 and 40% of current institutions of higher education to fail in the next 10 years or so. Expect another 40% or more to survive only in a form that is virtually unrecognizable compared to what they are today.

I don't know enough about Penn State to know where they are at, what they might offer that others might not, their academic strengths and weaknesses, etc.,, but if you're right that they are currently sitting on a billion of debt even before this PR/financial nightmare, they're going to have to guess right about a lot of things having absolutely nothing to do with football or sports.

There is going to be a *lot* of bloodletting in the next decade or so. (Regardless of whether the "great crash" happens to the economy as a whole or not.

Bank on it.


p.s. And many would consider me a flaming optimist.

You don't come around here anymore because everyone here has been cured in their grammatical ways. :)

And Rourke, you don't have to open these threads bud, lol.


I *think* I know what you're saying by "i could never do that". I remember people saying if they were married to Elin Nordegren they would never even consider the notion of cheating on her. How do they know that dating someone so voluptuous doesn't give them a big ego that they can do anyone without any consequences and thus feel superior to being caught?

We often don't know our limits until presented with situations of temptation.

Just when things start to quiet down just a bit for the university.. they make a bad decision and are going to be pounded yet again in the court of public opinion.

Why foot the bill for the two at the head of this story, but not for the one that out of the people in the know did the most to stop this?

No matter the answer.. they are going to be grilled over it.