PDA

View Full Version : Judge throws out 3 of 51 counts against Sandusky



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 16 17 18 19 20

attyfan
07-24-2012, 10:49 PM
Except they still keep the profits in many other ways, especially financially- all the tickets and merchandise that have been sold over the years. ...


I thought the fine was designed to strip the monetary profits from Penn State -- doesn't it represents the money earned from the football? If so, then the "stripping" completes the goal of taking from Penn State everything gained from the cover up. If not, there is still the civil lawsuits from the victims.

BelleBway
07-24-2012, 10:55 PM
I thought the fine was designed to strip the monetary profits from Penn State -- doesn't it represents the money earned from the football? If so, then the "stripping" completes the goal of taking from Penn State everything gained from the cover up. If not, there is still the civil lawsuits from the victims.

It doesn't seem like the fine amount would strip 14 years of profits, but I could be wrong.

skatingfan5
07-24-2012, 11:30 PM
It doesn't seem like the fine amount would strip 14 years of profits, but I could be wrong.No, the $60M fine is less than Penn State's football profits (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/penn-states-fine-is-less-than-the-ncaa-wants-you-to-think/260185/) from the past two years. Of course, the profits from the coming several years will be considerably less, given no possibility of post-season bowl appearances and the BigTen withholding Penn State's usual share of the bowl revenue during the ban (approx. $3.5 M/year). I read somewhere what the $60M figure was based on, but can't remember what it was or where I read it.

julieann
07-24-2012, 11:48 PM
No, the $60M fine is less than Penn State's football profits (http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/07/penn-states-fine-is-less-than-the-ncaa-wants-you-to-think/260185/) from the past two years. Of course, the profits from the coming several years will be considerably less, given no possibility of post-season bowl appearances and the BigTen withholding Penn State's usual share of the bowl revenue during the ban (approx. $3.5 M/year). I read somewhere what the $60M figure was based on, but can't remember what it was or where I read it.

Not to mention Penn State will lose all their top players, they have no reason to stay. The NCAA said they can transfer with no penalty, why wouldn't they. They fired a huge waring shot to other colleges and sport programs so hopefully these cover-ups won't happen again. I'm just sorry Paterno isn't alive to see it.

KCC
07-24-2012, 11:53 PM
Honestly, stripping wins is one of the least influencial punishments the NCAA can give out. It is purely symbolic and really doesn't mean anything. The only reason it matters at all is because it drops JoPa from winningest all time coach to 12th.

Our newspaper had an AP article with a q&a about what happens when wins are vacated. Individual player records do not appear to be affected (they can alter stats for just one person, I guess). Also, the opposing teams will not record wins that PSU is giving up.

skatingfan5
07-24-2012, 11:55 PM
Our newspaper had an AP article with a q&a about what happens when wins are vacated. Individual player records do not appear to be affected (they can alter stats for just one person, I guess). Also, the opposing teams will not record wins that PSU is giving up.Which only makes sense. Being stripped of a win is not the same thing as forfeiting a game.

agalisgv
07-25-2012, 12:04 AM
^^^ that's why I don't get all the boo-hooing over the players. Their stats remain intact, so professionally they aren't hurt. The bowl wins boost the school--not individual players.

Speaking generally, so much more concern has been expressed over how football players will be impacted than how the myriad rape survivors are doing. It's just a continuance of the very phenomena the Freeh report documented--placing the needs of the football program and everything associated with that at center stage to the point of placing the victims under complete erasure--yet again.

For goodness sake--it's football people. The players weren't molested over a period of years to the point where they now have memory holes, addiction issues, and daily suicidal thoughts. There's no unfairness in not being able to play a bowl game. There's no injustice in transferring schools (with scholarships intact). Perspective, people. Sheesh!

heckles
07-25-2012, 12:06 AM
Not to mention Penn State will lose all their top players, they have no reason to stay.

I suppose they might have personal or academic reasons for wanting to stay at PSU. Maybe the players' existing college credits won't transfer over completely to the new schools?

julieann
07-25-2012, 12:09 AM
The bowl wins boost the school--not individual players.

That is usually said by players who never won one. It is a very big deal to the payers.


Speaking generally, so much more concern has been expressed over how football players will be impacted than how the myriad rape survivors are doing.

No one has forgot what happened nor are the victims being trivialized. We are capable of discussing other facets of this case.

Really
07-25-2012, 12:15 AM
agalisgv -- generally speaking, I am not putting the needs of the football program ahead of the victims. As julieann said, we *are* capable of considering the impact on other innocents as well as the victims. No one here has said the impact on the players was more devastating than what happened to the young victims. It really doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One *can* have empathy for all those impacted who weren't involved in the crimes or the coverups.

julieann
07-25-2012, 12:20 AM
I suppose they might have personal or academic reasons for wanting to stay at PSU. Maybe the players' existing college credits won't transfer over completely to the new schools?

I'm going to take a stab in the dark and say if they were there to play Penn State football, they want to play on a winning team who will win championships to possibly further their professional football career. I could be wrong. Maybe they want to be close to family or really want to finish their degree at Penn State. But if their reason for going to Penn State was for their championship (now defunct?) football program, they will leave to seek new opportunities. I think that's why NCAA lifted the ban on the one year suspension for those such players.

They wanted to play at Penn State under that legacy, with Joe Paterno to win games and championships. Now look at it? I wonder if they would have choose that school knowing what they know. Probably not, so if the NCAA give them the oppotunity to go, I think many will take advantage.

heckles
07-25-2012, 12:44 AM
Probably not, so if the NCAA give them the oppotunity to go, I think many will take advantage.

Even if these athletes are at PSU primarily for the football program, what might keep some of them from leaving is the late date that they've gotten this opportunity. The season starts in just over a month, so the athletes don't have a lot of time to decide to leave PSU, contact coaches, await their replies, visit the programs, receive offers, weigh the choices, relocate, practice with the new team and enroll in classes.

agalisgv
07-25-2012, 01:59 AM
agalisgv -- generally speaking, I am not putting the needs of the football program ahead of the victims. As julieann said, we *are* capable of considering the impact on other innocents as well as the victims. No one here has said the impact on the players was more devastating than what happened to the young victims. It really doesn't have to be an either/or situation. One *can* have empathy for all those impacted who weren't involved in the crimes or the coverups. To clarify, the speaking generally qualification was meant to refer to larger discussions taking place beyond fsu. I wasn't pointing to peeps here.

The language of unfairness and injustice is being bandied about frequently in discussions of the NCAA sanctions, and I think that verbiage is completely inappropriate irt the players. Personally I think the sanctions should have gone farther, but to me the NCAA bent over backwards to accommodate current players. While some inconveniences may be involved for some players, it's only an inconvenience at most in my view, and nothing approaching an injustice as some have been given to calling it. It's that type of language I take exception to, and to reiterate, I'm talking about broader discussions beyond fsu.

julieann
07-25-2012, 05:55 AM
Even if these athletes are at PSU primarily for the football program, what might keep some of them from leaving is the late date that they've gotten this opportunity. The season starts in just over a month, so the athletes don't have a lot of time to decide to leave PSU, contact coaches, await their replies, visit the programs, receive offers, weigh the choices, relocate, practice with the new team and enroll in classes.

True if their a senior but it may be worth it for a junior, sophomore or freshman. One or two years are better than nothing.

heckles
07-25-2012, 06:05 AM
True if their a senior but it may be worth it for a junior, sophomore or freshman.

True. A sophomore football player probably doesn't want to spend the next three years with a demoralized, flattened program that has no potential for bowl games. I wonder if the transferred athletes will face stigma or resentment on their new teams, especially if they upstage the preexisting athletes.