Everyday I’m Shuffling: College Football Playoffs, Conference Realignment and Penn State

Posted: July 17, 2012 in Big East, Big Ten, College Basketball, College Football, Sports
Tags: , , ,

I’m finally back from along family vacation where I was blissfully unaware of any major news during that time, so let’s catch up on a few items:

(1) College Football Playoff Details Dripping Out and Confusing Everyone – About a month ago when the FBS commissioners plus Notre Dame announced that they agreed upon a new college football playoff system, it seemed fairly straight-forward with a 4-team playoff, semifinal sites rotated among 6 bowls to be played on New Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, and a selection committee choosing the participants in the semifinals and top bowls.  The first caveat, however, was that certain bowls would have ironclad contractual tie-ins, specifically the Big Ten and Pac-12 with the Rose Bowl, the SEC and Big 12 with the Please Choose the Sugar or Cotton So I Can Stop Calling This The Pompous Champions Bowl, and the ACC with the Orange Bowl.   I wrote back in November prior to a playoff being on the radar that any proposed elimination of automatic qualifier (AQ) status from the BCS system would simply be a matter of semantics and that contractual tie-ins would not go away.  In essence, the removal of AQ status only affected the Big East (which didn’t have a contractual tie-in with any top bowl).  In fact, the new system goes a step further and protects the contractual tie-ins in years where those top bowls aren’t semifinals regardless of ranking.  That is, if the Rose Bowl isn’t a semifinal in a given year and a Big Ten team is a semifinalist, the Rose will have a Big Ten replacement no matter what record or ranking such replacement has at the time (whereas the current BCS system requires any non-champ replacement needs to be in the top 14).  On the flip side, in the years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal host and the Big Ten champ isn’t in the top 4, then that Big Ten champ will go to one of the other top 6 bowls.  From this point forward, being a “power conference” means having a guaranteed tie-in with a “contract bowl”, while “access bowls” provide variable at-large spots that may or may not provide access to the non-power conferences in a given year.

At the same time, what was initially thought to be a simple rotation of semifinal games among the 6 top bowls may end up being much more complex.  The new Rose Bowl deal with ESPN indicated that Pasadena might only host 2 semifinals over a 12-year period (as opposed to 4 if there was an even rotation).  It has been speculated that the I’m Really Really Really Sick Of Calling This The Champions Bowl would similarly host fewer semifinals.  That didn’t make too much sense to me until SportsBusiness Daily reported an extremely important detail yesterday: the Big Ten and Pac-12 will split $80 million per year in media revenue from the Rose Bowl for the years that the game is NOT a semifinal host, while the revenue during semifinal years would be distributed in a manner to be determined with the rest of the new playoff system.  No wonder why the Big Ten and Pac-12 (and the SEC and Big 12) aren’t really that keen on giving up their top bowl tie-ins very often to semifinal games – they could be taking a haircut on a guaranteed $40 million payday in the applicable years.

The SportsBusiness Daily report also indicated that the commissioners expected to have the Rose Bowl and Allstate AT&T Chick-fil-A Breakfast of Champions Bowl host semifinals in the same years, which perplexes me to no end. What’s the point of doing that?  Would this mean that there could be years where there isn’t any semifinal on New Year’s Day when those two bowls aren’t hosting semifinals?  Why would a TV partner paying billions of dollars for this playoff (which is basically the entire impetus for this playoff being created in the first place) not want at least one semifinal in prime time every New Year’s Day?  By the same token, why would such TV partner pay for any semifinal games played on low-rated New Year’s Eve when most of America is outside of their homes getting hammered and not near a TV?

How the “access bowl” slots will be filled is also up in the air.  The goals of a selection committee, bowls and TV networks aren’t always going to be aligned here.  A selection committee will presumably want to award bids based on merit, bowls want teams with the best ticket buying traveling fan bases and TV networks want the most attractive national brand names.  (The latter two usually have a strong correlation, but there are certain exceptions.  Iowa, for example, is gold for bowls with how Hawkeye fans travel, yet a TV network would likely prefer bad-traveling-but-big-TV-ratings-draw Miami if it came down to a choice between the two.)

Then, we get to the selection committee itself.  I’ve warmed up to the concept a bit over the past month or so, but I still have a ton of reservations on how it’s going to work.  Is this structurally going to end up being an end-of-the-year poll only using 10 to 20 people as opposed to 115 people?  If so, why is that an improvement over the current usage of the Harris Poll?  (Note that I firmly believe that the use of the Coaches’ Poll where there are blatant conflicts of interest should be eliminated from any sort of selection criteria.)  How is strength of schedule going to be taken into account?  (In my humble opinion, SOS is politically correct code for “only the 5 power conferences matter”. When looking at the SOS rankings last year, the only school outside of the 5 power conferences plus Notre Dame that made it to the top 50 was Tulsa, which had a murderer’s row non-conference schedule of Oklahoma State, Oklahoma and Boise State.  Big East champ West Virginia was only at #51 even though it played LSU as a non-conference opponent.  Anyone that thinks that SEC teams are going to get docked for playing cupcakes in their non-conference schedules are completely misguided – SOS rankings help the SEC even MORE than subjective human polls.)  I know a lot of college football fans believe that many pollsters fill out their ballots blindly every week and distrust the polls accordingly, but I’m honestly much more worried about the disproportionate power of 1 committee member vote that can’t be mitigated by a large poll pool.  This is a situation where we really won’t know how well the selection committee concept will work until we see it in action.

To be clear, I’m very happy with the new playoff system overall. I have been pushing for some type of playoff for many years that still manages to preserve the Big Ten/Pac-12 tradition of the Rose Bowl and this system largely fits that criteria.  As someone that has been following this story closely, though, I’m just curious about the details that I don’t believe the commissioners themselves know how to resolve as of yet.

(2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front – When the Orange Bowl signed a new deal with the ACC that provided the conference with all of the bowl’s media revenues, that removed any doubt regarding the ACC’s place in college football’s power structure.  I feel like the proverbial broken record here in continuously saying that the ACC is much stronger than what football fans give them credit for.  The ACC’s on-the-field record in BCS bowl games is irrelevant here: a league with academically prestigious schools (many of whom are flagships) that own or have large shares of their own home markets isn’t going to get booted out of the elite club.

This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously.  To be sure, the new Big 12 TV contract might end up being so massive that it’s too much for any of those schools to turn down, but then it becomes circular for the Big 12 schools themselves.  That is, if the Big 12 TV contract is truly going to be that large, why expand at all and split up the pie further?  We’re at the point where there might be little incentive for either side to make any moves other than to provide all of us here with blogging fodder to discuss during the offseason.  There is no longer any rational fear on the part of Florida State and Clemson that the ACC will no longer be part of the power group.  By the same token, the Big 12 doesn’t need Florida State or Clemson to stabilize themselves to get a larger TV contract.  The wild card is obviously Notre Dame, but I’ll agree with The Dude of West Virginia on one point: anyone that thinks the Irish are joining his/her conference for football has gone full retard.

That leaves us with some less-sexy outstanding conference realignment matters that need to be settled, mainly who the Big East will add as its 14th football member.  Air Force still seems to be the most reasonably plausible addition that would add value to the league by pairing it up with rival Navy, although the Falcons completely backed off from Big East overtures last fall after appearing very interested.  (Note that I personally believe that BYU is going to be committed to independence for awhile.  The Cougars appear to be concerned with national ESPN exposure and building up BYUtv even more than money and being independent could be a better value proposition to sell in competing against Pac-12 member Utah for recruits compared to being in the Big East or any other non-power conference.)  After that, the pickings get a lot slimmer.  Fresno State is competitive on-the-field with a solid fan base, but might be the West Coast version of East Carolina where the Big East isn’t interested in entering that market.  UNLV has a solid TV market yet is essentially the Western version of Memphis, where their football ineptitude/basketball competence means that they make more sense as a potential all-sports member as opposed to a football-only member (except that UNLV doesn’t have the geographic proximity of Memphis to make an all-sports membership viable).  Bottom line: the Big East needs Air Force pretty badly here.

(3) Little Glass Houses For You and Me – Finally, the Penn State scandal seems to continuously get worse and worse for the university in the wake of the issuance of the independent report by Louis Freeh.  This has led to calls of punishments such as the death penalty for the football program, which NCAA president Mark Emmert said is an option that is not “off the table”.

I really cannot defend anything that Penn State’s leadership, including but not limited to the late Joe Paterno, did (or more appropriately, did not do) in covering up multiple instances of child rape.  There is truly nothing more heinous than letting child rape continue on for years and years when it could have been prevented by someone just speaking up.  However, I have also seen a lot of commentators, columnists, bloggers and message board posters spend a ton of time acting sanctimonious and try to one-up each other in terms of how outraged they are.  What troubles me, and as Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal poignantly pointed out in this piece, is that there’s an argument being parroted by many people that the “insular culture” in State College that allowed a massive coverup to protect the Nittany Lion football program is somehow a unique Penn State problem.  If you believe that to be the case, ask yourself about how confident you are that your own alma mater or favorite college team hasn’t skirted or outright violated the law at some point.  How many sexual assaults by star football and basketball players have been swept under the rug over the years?  How many schools use coeds as “hostesses” for top-level recruits visiting campus where there are certain expectations of how those hostesses are supposed to provide a memorable weekend? How would you feel if your own daughter was one of those hostesses?  What about the murder of a transferring player, like in the case of Baylor in 2003?  How about sending a student to a tall video tower with 50 mph wind gusts?  Even a marching band in the SWAC can have its own insular culture that results in horrific consequences.

It’s not just about whether child rape is worse than the recruiting violations at SMU back in the 1980s that caused the NCAA to hand that school the death penalty.  Child rape is obviously exponentially more heinous and awful than anything that the NCAA has on the books (and frankly, I’m someone that believes that most recruiting rules are completely ridiculous).  However, the supposedly insular culture at Penn State where the protection of the “brand” is of the utmost importance is a culture that permeates everywhere in big-time college sports.  Chances are pretty high that your own school has some skeletons in its own closest that would bury your football or basketball program if the truth ever came to light.  This isn’t to excuse anything that occurred at Penn State, but it’s something that everyone needs to remember when trying to pass judgment on the culture in State College.  None of us are in a position to be sanctimonious here.  The culture everywhere in college sports needs to change (not just at Penn State).

(Follow Frank the Tank’s Slant on Twitter @frankthetank111 and Facebook)

(Image from The C-Blog)

About these ads
Comments
  1. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    GEAUX Pre-season #1 LSU Fightin’ Tigers!

    Like

  2. Denogginizer says:

    Go B1G Red!

    Like

  3. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Frank – welcome back.

    Today was the first day of SEC Media days. Over 1,100 press credentials were issued. In Slive’s “State of the SEC” address, Project “X” (a round-the-clock SEC Network) is now known as “Project SEC”. He really didn’t offer any news.

    I’m also sick of the Champions Bowl moniker, especially since it will usually be Big XII #2 v. SEC #3 most years. While I originally hoped it would land in New Orleans, if the Champions Bowl follows the new Rose Bowl model, I doubt the Sugar Bowl committee really wants it. If the Sugar could get 6-8 semis and 2 NCGs over the 12 year cycle, they’d be much happier with games that matter, rather than just exhibition games.

    Like

    • 8-team Playoffs Now says:

      Have you ever made a post here that wasn’t in some way an SEC wank?

      Like

      • 8-team Playoffs Now says:

        I could see some logic in putting both semifinal games on Dec 31 in some years:

        A. Maybe testing the waters early on to see what the ratings will be, especially for the night game. IIRC, they aren’t scheduling the whole 12 years right away.

        B. Making the 12/31 night game a playoff is the best way to boost ratings for that timeslot.

        C. When NYEve falls on a Saturday, 2 afternoon playoff games should draw great ratings. Sunday is reserved for the NFL, but when NYEve is a Monday that might get almost as good ratings as Saturday, since it will be a holiday for far more persons than midweek NYEves. Friday NYEve might also work, to a lesser extent.

        D. Seems like the demand elasticity is far higher for 12/31 than 1/1. So I would not be surprised if the increase in viewers of putting a playoff on 1/1 is less than putting it on 12/31, and thus 12/31 might provide higher net viewership for the entire ex-BCS bowl package that will be bid upon.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        8-team Playoffs Now,

        “Have you ever made a post here that wasn’t in some way an SEC wank?”

        Wow, that’s a cheap shot.

        Lots of us post pro-our conference comments, but Alan always provides good info. Many of his comments are SEC related because he has insight and knowledge there that the rest of us don’t. Most of his comment was new info (changed name for the SEC network project, his opinion on the Champs moniker).

        Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        WARNING FOR 8-TEAM PLAYOFFS NOW: SEC-related content to follow from SEC Media Days.

        Saban suggests a Penn State ticket tax to assist victims of child abuse.

        http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8180229/tax-penn-state-athletics-benefit-kids

        Saban also supports a 9 game SEC schedule.

        LSU and Texas A&M may start playing on Thanksgiving weekend, along with Mizzou/Arky.

        Spurrier quipped that if he made the schedule, USCe would play Ole Miss and Georgia would play LSU.

        LSU picked to win the SEC over UGA in the SEC CCG.

        Brain – thanks for the kind words.

        Like

        • largeR says:

          Love your lead in! :)

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Alan from Baton Rouge,

          “Saban also supports a 9 game SEC schedule.”

          I’ll give him credit, he isn’t afraid of a tough schedule. Now, he still gets his cupcakes every year but I think he would be willing to play no cupcakes as long as nobody else did either.

          “Brian – thanks for the kind words.”

          No problem. There are plenty of legitimate complaints to make about various people that comment here, but complaining about homer posts from you isn’t one of them. There are plenty of worse offenders, and many more pro-B10 posts than anything else here. If we didn’t have people like you and Bamatab, we’d never hear the SEC side of these issues.

          Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          Penn State may be fined up to $60mm with the proceeds going to child-related programs/charities.

          http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027

          After a few days reflection, I wouldn’t be surprised if Emmert had Saban float the PSU ticket tax idea at SEC media days to gauge reaction. Emmert was the LSU Chancellor that hired Saban away from Sparty. They are very close. When Emmert left LSU for Washington, Saban really started listening the NFL inquiries.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            Alan,

            I think of even more interest is the Yahoo link in that story, although a $30-60M fine is huge. Unprecedented even.

            http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–sources–ncaa-president-to-hit-penn-state-with–staggering–penalties-from-sandusky-scandal.html

            “The move will mark a first in NCAA history, in which the president will invoke a defense of the NCAA’s constitution as part of his reasoning for taking the unprecedented steps. The moment is groundbreaking in that Emmert is circumventing typical NCAA process and moving forward without an investigation by his enforcement staff. However, Emmert is expected to detail that the action is backed by a special provision allowing such a step if he receives approval from the NCAA’s board of directors. A source told Y! Sports the NCAA is prepared to defend the lack of an investigation by focusing on the Freeh Report, and Emmert’s determination that the report provided actionable evidence.”

            If that provision exists, all the lawyers need to sit down and shut up about this.

            Like

  4. greg says:

    Hawks.

    Like

  5. CM says:

    Thanks for a rational voice on PSU. I’m tired of reading, “they should tear their entire stadium down” and “the whole athletics program should be shut down forever”. It’s hard to find an educated thought with so many ridiculous screaming voices on both sides of the discussion.

    Like

  6. bamatab says:

    Roll Tide Roll!

    Like

  7. Penn State Danny says:

    Thanks Frank.

    Like

  8. Penn State Danny says:

    And for what it’s worth, I still think that Army will be the 14th team in the Big East.

    And man, it feels good to talk about something so trivial.

    Like

  9. SH says:

    Regarding Penn State, I’m not sure what purpose the death penalty serves. Frankly, I’m not sure under what authority is the NCAA allowed to impose it. In my opinion, there is no role for the death penalty in college football. The decision to abandon a program should be left to the school itself. The NCAA can impose other sanctions, and the conference itself could impose sanctions, but the so-called death penalty by the NCAA is too much for me.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      SH,

      If they wait for the annual convention, the NCAA can levy any punishment they want for anything via a supermajority vote.

      Like

  10. David Beagin says:

    If you’re obsessing over a statue on campus, then you’re missing the point.

    Like

  11. Old_Breed says:

    Great post….it is amazing how many people miss the forest through the trees…

    Like

  12. texmex says:

    I agree with the premise that the culture at Penn State is probably no different than other major institutions and are not immune to some of the same decision blunders that occurred. But that also doesn’t mean other institutions would have acted the same way either. So having said that, whether or not Penn State’s culture is different than anybody’s else’s is irrelevant when determining their punishment. The fact is it still happened.

    This becomes an NCAA issue the minute the head football coach became involved in the decision making process. If a Penn State Economics professor was raping young boys using PSU facilities, I doubt Paterno is consulted. In fact, I would be willing to bet the decision making process would be a lot different than what’s been reported in this situation. Major decisions by athletic departments mostly revolve around protecting, defending, and enhancing your brand and image as a program. That as stake in this situation.

    Penn State is a voluntary member of the NCAA. It’s a voluntary membership between both sides The NCAA has full governance with regard to its’ competition with other NCAA members. They have every right to punish them as they see fit. If PSU has an issue with that, they can join another collegiate athletic association. If the NCAA wanted to, they could probably vote to kick Penn State out of its’ membership and there’s wouldn’t be anything PSU could do about it. ..ditto for the Big 10 conference.

    I haven’t decided what I personally think should happen to PSU if I were in charge. But there’s no question in my mind the NCAA has every right to be involved in this situation and levy a punishment they deem appropriate…whether than punishment is a 2 year bowl ban, 10 year bowl ban, 5 year TV ban, loss of 30 scholarships or 3 year death penalty.

    Like

    • danallen2 says:

      An economics prof. was caught raping a young boy. The victim got him to confess on tape. That case went the same way as Sandusky. Which further supports Frank’s point. Institutions conduct cost/benefit analyses, bring lawyers in, weigh liabilities, and then they’re in CYA mode.

      Murders were covered up at Eastern Michigan, child porn rings at U Michigan Med. School, rapes at U. Colorado, etc.

      Like

    • je304@gmail.com says:

      So child rape is only worth 30 scholarships? Or, more directly, it’s impossible to create an NCAA sanction that is a proper punishment for what happened, death penalty included. Seems much more worthwhile to let the grown ups take care of a grown up problem and leave the silly TV bans for things like tatoos and text book sales.

      I just don’t think there’s a very good solution to the problem, NCAA or otherwise.

      Like

  13. jj says:

    The upside is that it became a little easier to make a rose bowl. The dream never dies!

    Like

  14. Tom Jones says:

    I understand the B1G/PAC12 alliance fell apart because 4 PAC schools were opposed.
    Anybody know who the 4 were, and why they were opposed?

    Like

      • jmgcougman says:

        Based on the PR, best bets the other three are Stanford, USC, and either UCLA or Utah.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        Interesting note:
        “Yet it’s believed USC and Stanford thought the plan could still work once their other high-profile nonconference games were off the schedule.”

        USC has TX in 2017-8 and TN in 2021-2 (sites TBD, so there may be no contract)
        Stanford has UVA in 2017-8

        It sounds like they would have been willing to do it in 2019 and on. Stanford has NW for 2019-2022, so they aren’t one of the 4.

        Clearly WSU and OrSU were in favor while UW was against. I’m thinking it was several mid-level schools that didn’t necessarily want the extra tough game. The bottom end wanted the deal to get B10 schools to play at their place. The top end are going to play someone tough regardless so they could probably live with it.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          UW against is a bit surprising. However, they are no longer counted among those having never scheduled a 1-AA. They seem to have decided to adopt a bit of SEC/B12 scheduling strategy that, from what I have read, seems to be going over like a lead ballon with fans. Props to USC, UCLA, and ND as the three remaining not to have scheduled down. And apologies to the Trojans, as they were my (and many others) first guess as a no go voter.

          This just all seems odd as I understand with UA scheduling IA that every PAC team has multiple B10 opponents on their future schedules. Perhaps the arrangement is in fact suspended rather than canceled.

          Like

          • greg says:

            Ariz has schedule with Iowa? This is the first I’ve heard of it. They did play in 2009 and 2010.

            2016 is Iowa’s first open spot.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Greg:

            Perhaps I misunderstood an AZ supporter I was talking to. If they haven’t scheduled then AZ is my second guess as a no vote as they alone in the PAC wouldn’t have a B1G set in their future.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            UW is trying to get back to the top. They need wins more than SOS at this point. I think they looked at it as making it harder to make a good bowl game.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            I’m sure you are correct regarding the AD’s intention, but I think he has misjudged the Husky fans acceptance. Comments like: How many hundred million for a stadium to watch exhibition games? Wasn’t the local HS or CC available? There’s is still a proud alumnae base, in spite of the last decade.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Agreed. The UW fans have not been happy. That said, I’m betting they are still buying more tickets than when UW was winless. Once sales start to suffer or donations drop, then the AD will listen.

            Like

    • Mike says:

      Due to Mike Leach, I guessed WSU.

      Like

  15. Elvis says:

    So everyone is guilty in college football than PSU shouldn’t be given the death penalty?

    I REALLY hope that isn’t your logic. Because it is crappy logic.

    “the ACC is much stronger than what football fans give them credit for”

    no it isn’t. It is death for football schools and coming revenue differences will make it more obvious. Nobody in the Big 4 cares if Clemson, FSU, and Va Tech no longer can compete for titles (after revenue differences kick in). But those schools might……because it is only a matter of time.

    Like

  16. frug says:

    (I posted this in the previous thread, since you brought up the issue here I thought I would repost it here)

    http://www.fbschedules.com/2012/07/report-air-force-cincinnati-to-cancel-future-football-series/

    This is interesting, Air Force just canceled an upcoming series with Oklahoma St. and is now calling of a series with Cincinnati. While Air Force says that OSU and the Bearcats initiated both cancellations, it means that Air Force now has only Army and Navy on its OOC schedule from 2014 on. Speculation is that they are clearing their schedule for a possible move to the Big East along with Navy.

    Like

  17. FLP_NDRox says:

    All right, let’s for the sake of argument assume Penn State gets the Death Penalty. I have questions for the group.

    1. If it is 2yrs or less, does the Big Ten boot PSU?

    2. If it is >2yrs does the Big Ten boot PSU?

    3. If PSU gets booted, where do they end up?

    3.5 Or is the answer, “obviously in the Big East, dummy.”

    4. If PSU get booted, who does the Big Ten bring in, if anyone, to replace them?

    Like

    • Brian says:

      FLP_NDRox,

      “All right, let’s for the sake of argument assume Penn State gets the Death Penalty. I have questions for the group.

      1. If it is 2yrs or less, does the Big Ten boot PSU?”

      No.

      “2. If it is >2yrs does the Big Ten boot PSU?”

      No.

      “3. If PSU gets booted, where do they end up?”

      They’d join the ACC, with MD, Pitt and Syracuse. I think they’d pass on the SEC and B12, who would both offer as well, over academics and geography.

      “3.5 Or is the answer, “obviously in the Big East, dummy.””

      No way on Earth. They’d return to independence before they join the BE.

      “4. If PSU get booted, who does the Big Ten bring in, if anyone, to replace them?”

      Pitt. The only argument against them was not adding TV. Now they would help replace what was lost. MO would be an option but I don’t think they’d jump ship from the SEC. ND is a no go.

      By adding Pitt, now the B10 can split East/West:
      East – OSU, MI, MSU, Pitt, PU, IN
      West – NE, WI, IA, NW, IL, MN

      I don’t think locked rivals would be necessary, either, so they’d play 5-3.

      Like

      • jj says:

        In hypothetical land, nd replacing psu would be better. Perhaps this is too obvious, but the b10 would need a hockey school in such a scenario. I might be wrong but I don’t think Pitt has one.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          jj,

          I didn’t want to get that hypothetical. Of course ND would be better for the B10.

          Like

          • jj says:

            If u saw the latest story about the B10, I think this could play out. Not likely, but maybe.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            jj,

            I saw the story about PSU maybe getting the boot. What story will convince me that ND would join the B10?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            The divisions would be tricky (in order of locked rivals):

            A – MI, ND, MSU, PU, IN, NW
            B – OSU, NE, WI, IA, MN, IL

            A – OSU, MI, MSU, NW, IL, IN
            B – NE, ND, WI, IA, MN, PU

            A – OSU, ND, IN, WI, MN, PU
            B – NE, MI, MSU, IA, NW, IL

            Other?

            Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Personally, I think if it is over 2yrs, the B1G might well kick them out.

          I assumed they would let the PSU hockey team stay on as the first associate B1G member if/when ND didn’t show up and they had to take Pitt (which is kinda a no-brainer new #12 IMHO).

          I don’t know if the ACC would take a post-DP PSU, I figure only the Big East would be willing.

          Like

  18. frug says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8175462/jerry-sandusky-scandal-penn-state-nittany-lions-trustees-passed-reform-2004

    In November 2004…

    …seven members of Penn State’s board of trustees proposed sweeping reforms that would have strengthened the board’s oversight power of Spanier and other campus leaders, including Paterno, according to documents obtained this week by “Outside the Lines.” The group told the full board, “Decisions scrutinized with the benefit of hindsight need to withstand the test of being informed decisions.”

    But the board never took a vote on the proposal. Spanier and then-board chairwoman Cynthia Baldwin considered the reforms — and… said no, three current trustees say.

    Joel Myers, a longtime trustee, said the Freeh investigators told him that if the good-governance proposal had been adopted by the board back in 2004, “This (crisis) could have been avoided.”

    The whole BoT really needs to go.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      It’s hard to blame the whole BoT when the topic didn’t even get to most of them. I think for symbolic reasons they should all go, but I don’t put too much blame on them for this.

      Like

      • metatron says:

        “Symbolic” reasons are illogical reasons.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Symbols are powerful. Showing they put the school above themselves by quitting would mean something to many people. Letting a whole new BoT create the new rules would look better to everybody.

          Like

  19. Jake Benson says:

    I completely agree that the protection of the ‘brand’ is a part of many universities and is not unique to Penn State. However, I think that is exactly why the NCAA needs to come down hard here. At some point Joe Pa and the others did a mental calculation and determined that removing a known child sex predator from the streets was not worth the potential damage to the Penn State brand. Penn State needs to be made an example so that the next time someone in power even considers protecting a criminal for the sake of an athletic program that they can refer to the steaming crater that was once Penn State football.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      IMO, their thinking was a lot more complex than a simple cost/benefit to Penn St. There were personal calculations-they ignored the red flags from the 1998 incident and continued to allow him to bring young kids around. There was the personal element-they knew and had worked with Sandusky for many years, found it hard to accept and wanted to help him-while they didn’t personally know the victims. There was the head in the sand element-this is a very unpleasant thing and they didn’t want to deal with it or even think about it-they just wanted it to go away. Why else would it take 17 days to make a decision?

      There’s a culture factor and all of these people had been together for a long time so there would tend to be some group think, but there are a lot of other factors involved.

      Like

  20. matthewladner says:

    Frank-

    If you are Florida State, and you want to want to play big-boy football over the long haul, just what is the plan for remaining competitive with the SEC schools which surround you while remaining in the ACC? A situation in which Vanderbilt and Mississippi State are making a great deal more money from their television rights than Florida State wouldn’t sit well with me if I were a Noles fan.

    The ACC sold their soul to ESPN to get their basketball games on air. That might be a good deal for Wake Forest, but it is a lousy deal for Florida State.

    Like

    • Elvis says:

      You are 100% correct.

      But Clemson and FSU are supposed to just shut their mouths because it works for the other 9-10 schools who don’t do a thing for football (and the money).

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Clemson has a major announcement on the 20th at noon. Noone seems to have any idea what it is. Could be some major donation to their academic side. Could be something to keep Frank busy. Could be some sponsor will get them to wear new uniforms even more hideous than Maryland.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          “Could be some sponsor will get them to wear new uniforms even more hideous than Maryland.”
          Phil Knight loves a challenge.

          Like

          • *Shudder*

            My eyes burn during every Maryland and Oregon game. I’m a complete reactionary when it comes to uniforms.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            They do have that lovely combo of neon orange and purple to work with. I’m thinking purple tiger stripes on an orange background from head to toe (shoes, socks, pants jersey, helmet, everything).

            Like

    • Brian says:

      matthewladner,

      “If you are Florida State, and you want to want to play big-boy football over the long haul, just what is the plan for remaining competitive with the SEC schools which surround you while remaining in the ACC?”

      Oversign, pay relatives of players, give jobs to coaches/friends/relatives, and use every other trick those schools use. That’s all done with donor/booster money, not TV money.

      What was FSU’s plan before when the SEC was making more than the ACC?

      Like

      • Elvis says:

        “What was FSU’s plan before when the SEC was making more than the ACC?”

        When FSU joined the ACC, it had the HIGHEST conference payout. It has since fallen to the 5th highest and the Big 4 are increasing the difference at a HUGE rate.

        Things changed. The facts changed. FSU football (and Clemson) are screwed if they stay in the ACC with the trending of revenue in a conference that REFUSES to see football as the cash cow. Basketball is all that matters and they are annoyed by the football schools. The end result. Lowest revenue of the major conference by a LONG shot.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Elvis,

          “When FSU joined the ACC, it had the HIGHEST conference payout.”

          I’ll take your word for it since it’s been over 20 years. I doubt the ACC was #1 every year until just recently, though.

          “FSU football (and Clemson) are screwed if they stay in the ACC with the trending of revenue”

          Bull. That’s just an excuse. FSU is in the heart of the best recruiting area in the country and has millions of fans. They make a lot of revenue, too. Boise, TCU and Utah have been fielding better teams with less than 10% of the budget lately.

          “in a conference that REFUSES to see football as the cash cow.”

          That’s crap, too. They see it, they just can’t capitalize on it because teams like FSU stopped winning big. They can’t force networks to pay them more.

          “Basketball is all that matters and they are annoyed by the football schools.”

          Based on what?

          Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          Elvis,

          The ACC got the lowest revenue because of horrible timing for contract renegotiations, not because of Basketball vs. Football. The Pac-12, which had inferior ratings to the ACC, SEC, Big Ten, and probably Big 12, currently has the best TV contract of all because it negotiated when the market value for live sports had escalated to unprecedented heights. Had the ACC negotiated at the same time, its contract would have been even better.

          Secondly, believe it or not, the people who run the ACC read the same widely-known reports about how football drives TV value in college sports. Shoot, if football isn’t seen as the cash cow, but in the heck were Miami and Virginia Tech added? If you say it was for basketball, you’re out of your mind. Now, for Syracuse and Pitt, they were added because they were the best schools who could add value to the TV contract while still being academically acceptable enough (much to WVU’s dismay) to the more high-brow members (UNC, Duke). The fact that SU and Pitt happen to be good at roundball was just icing on the cake, but their basketball indeed is not the cash cow.

          Like

        • greg says:

          The ACC is letting basketball drive the bus? Is that why they ruined a historic basketball ethos to add football schools VT, BC, FSU and Miami? Is that why they moved the title game away from the conference center to football hotbed Florida? Is that why one of the ACC crown jewels, UNC, hired a coach who’s last college head coaching job was at ThugU? Is that why the same school set up fake classes to allow football players to stay eligible?

          Despite making all these football decisions, the conference went 2-13 in the BCS and dropped from 1st to 5th in revenue. What did it gain them beyond a tattered reputation?

          Like

  21. Christian in T says:

    Hook em

    Like

  22. Richard says:

    It’ll be interesting to see if the Orange gets 2 or 4 or 6 semifinals (and thus how much the ACC gets to keep for themselves). Was it 4 in a press release somewhere?

    Is it certain that the Champions Bowl will be primetime NYD? That contract hasn’t been negotiated yet, so if that bowl is movable, primetime NYD could have a semifinal in years that the Rose or Orange isn’t a semifinal (Champions Bowl being NYD when one is).

    Like

    • frug says:

      Obviously nothing is set in stone until the contracts are signed, but the SEC and Big XII have made clear they intend for the game to be played in primetime on New Years right after the Rose Bowl.

      Like

  23. koxinga says:

    Very interesting stuff as usual. It doesn’t seem that the FBS commissioners really were much in alignment into how this new system they’ve created will look. As each is concerned with their own interests in a zero-sum game, there are certain to be losers somewhere and that is going to remain an issue going forward.

    Quick question for other readers- what other blogs or forums to you read that discuss realignment/consolidation? I very much enjoy Frank’s perspectives, and have been looking around to find others which reflect on the shifting landscape of the sport. Any suggestions?

    Like

  24. CM says:

    NCAA won’t punish with a death penalty because the punishment is completely displaced versus the criminals. Many small businesses in State College won’t be able to stay open without a football season and the NCAA won’t want to be directly related to job losses. Sure, there’s collateral damage when punishing a program like this, but putting innocent businesses in the cross-hairs will create a serious backlash against the organization.

    NCAA should force a bowl ban, force the university to create child abuse PSAs in the stadium/on tv, and force the university to donate football revenues be donated to similar charities. It makes much more sense to use PSU’s popularity to promote the cause instead of shutting it down which does nothing to help the victims.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      Great points, CM. Shutting down football would also effectively shut down many of the other 29 PSU sports. Track & Field, gymnastics, swimming, etc.–where does the money that supports those sports come from? Obviously, from the football program. I doubt basketball is even a net positive revenue generator, considering how empty the building is most of the times I’ve seen PSU on TV.

      I think what needs to be done is something that punishes the football program that doesn’t have a bunch of collateral damage. Reduce the program from 85 scholarships/year to 50/year for five years (unlike USC’s supposedly overwhelming punishment of 75 scholarships/year for three years). Ban the team from bowl games for five years. Also, the NCAA should force PSU to donate to child advocacy groups, etc., as CM suggested, because that would actually do something that actually has a chance at making a positive difference, as opposed to just killing the football program.

      PSU absolutely deserves to pay a steep price. An example needs to be made out of them as a warning that nothing like this can ever happen again, because that cover-up was disgusting and egregious. But other parties, like the small businesses in State College, the non-revenue sports, and the Big Ten, shouldn’t have to pay the price alongside Penn State. They are no more guilty for what happened that you and I are.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        A person who brings their children to their sentencing hearing so the judge will pity their children is exactly the kind of person who needs to go to jail. I am so very tired of watching the guilty try to garner sympathy with “won’t someone think of the children.” No one thought of the children, apparently damned few PSU folks are still thinking of the children, and I’ll be darned if Penn State should get sympathy from “think of the small businessman”.

        “Let’s not get crazy” is not an appropriate response given what Freeh turned up. For folks who’ve spoke of honor for half a century, they seem to have little honor…or shame (see the Paterno family). If they had either, they’d sit down, shut up, and pray that they can recover from their well deserved lumps.

        Let every player in every sport transfer. 15 lost scholarships/yr for 5 years and no bowl games while they stink is a joke given circumstances, and I hope to God you know that.

        If PSU goes down, the Big Ten’ll just grab Pitt and be fine. I didn’t care personally until all the Penn State fanatics and Big Ten apologists felt the need to go to bat for them. Now I find myself wishing for the DP in spite of my earlier thoughts, just in reaction to their pathology.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Michael is hardly a Big Ten apologist; the guy openly supports FSU and the ACC.

          Next you’re going to call bullet a Big Ten apologist.

          This is ridiculous. What competitive advantage did Penn State get from harboring Jerry Sandusky? Tell me that before you start parading around for the death penalty.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Didn’t mean Michael specifically. I was thinking more generally, looking at reactions around the interwebs.

            @zeek

            Let me answer a question with a question: Was having Joe Pa as head coach from 1998-2010 a competitive advantage?

            If it weren’t for his and the rest of the gang of four silence, Joe Pa would not have been head coach that whole time. With the scandal, recuiting would have suffered, and Paterno would have been forced to deal with much bigger off field issues than if/when he’ll retire.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Okay, then give a requisite penalty on par with that. Strip them of their victories for a decade and put them on probation for as long. Maybe add some other things. I don’t see where the death penalty comes into play if the issue is the competitive advantage of having JoePa.

            There are all sorts of legal violations committed by every football program in the country. Hardly any justify NCAA action. Perhaps this one does, but it should match the actual competitive impact.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            I’m sorry, I missed it when it was determined that the ncaa’s sole authority was maintaining competitive balance.

            Last I heard, it was born trying to keep the government from cracking down on football after ll the onfield fatalities at the beginning of last. ccentury. It became powerful keeping players as indentured servants in the 50ssam or so.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            The NCAA needs to do what’s best for the industry for the college sports industry and make PSU and their unthinkable crimes, and tonedeaf fans go away for a while. Cutting the perceived cancer is about the only thing the industry caan do at this point to help in the court of public opinion.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            I really don’t see what any of this solves. Do you think the NCAA should have gotten involved in the Declan Sullivan case?

            I tend to think the courts are effectively equipped to deal with this situation.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            It wouldn’t have bother me if the NCAA stepped in on Mr. Sullivan’s death. Before you call BS, remember Declan was a Domer, and Kelly, the actual responsible person, isn’t. I didn’t have a problem with the Lou era sanctions.

            What it solves is obvious: it get people back on the actual sport. Folks can stop trying score point in re PSU. The speculation stops. There is no more [black] shoe to drop.

            The courts run sure and thorough, as they should…but they run to slow for the 24hr news cycle.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            @FLP
            I really don’t recall hearing any tuned in Notre Dame fans after the Elizabeth Seeburg suicide following an alleged sexual assult by a football player. Should the NCAA have dealt with this? An attorney at the time claimed the same thing had happened to her and others. The DOE reviewed it and it directly involved the football team.

            http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/01/notre-dame-making-changes_n_888873.html

            And in that case, the Notre Dame police showed a lot of deference to the athletic department in arranging to interview the suspect.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            @bullet

            Miss Seeburg was a distrubed girl, aand her passing is sad.

            But her case involved a grabbing of a breast. This is about far from the serial rape of preadolecent children as you can go and still have it perhaps fall under the term “sexual battery”.

            Its no secret at ND that dtudent discipline is kinda a crapshoot even if it doesn’t involve athletes.

            Also, twenty years ago, the stat was that one in six women would be raped during their undergrad years.

            Local prosecutors had no evidence, the report you cited found a no major wrongdoing by ND, and just had reminders to better communicate.

            I don’t remember anyone going off the deep end either way. What I remember is that her college (SMC) really ended up looking bad by keeping her family out of the loop and not keeping a better eye on her.

            Like

          • frug says:

            Let me answer a question with a question: Was having Joe Pa as head coach from 1998-2010 a competitive advantage?

            JoePa didn’t break any NCAA rules.

            I’m not excusing his behavior and agree with his firing, but nothing he did (or didn’t do) falls under the scope of the NCAA.

            Like

          • Elvis says:

            “the guy openly supports FSU and the ACC.”

            No he supports FSU in the ACC. Not FSU AND the ACC. HUGE difference.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            @bullet

            I am mistaken. IIRC, the Chicago Tribune’s handling of the Seeburg case among other things was the reason NDN stopped linking to them.

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            @Elvis,

            If you’re talking about me, I am a supporter of Florida State and a supporter of the ACC. I would be enormously disappointed if FSU ever left the ACC.

            Like

        • Psuhockey says:

          I get that people are mad and want justice is this case and the Joepa apologists make me want to bash their face in. And I get, just like with the Catholic church, that haters of an insitution, organized religion, Christianity, or in this case big time college athletics, come out in swarms wanting to end the entire enterprise when the opportunity presents itself. But this isnt a football issue no matter how people want to make it. This is a people issue. This is four man who conspired to protect their own ass not the football team. The football program isn’t hurt if this comes out to the authorities in 98. Joe Paterno is hurt and his saintly clean image. The men is charge took their ques from him. If these men coached men’s lacrosse, people wouldn’t be calling for the end of the lacrosse program. They would be calling for these men to go to jail. You might say that they wouldn’t have he power if they were the lacrosse coach and that’s true but then you are arguing against big time college athletics as a whole and the power it gives. Is that going to change because of this case no matter the penalty to PSU? You are naive if you believe so. There will be other scandals in the future. Powerful men will always try to protect their positions. Power always corrupts. So for those calling for the death penalty, what are you hoping it will accomplish? Or do you just want scortched earth vengeance?

          Like

          • Mike says:

            Joe Paterno is hurt and his saintly clean image. The men is charge took their ques from him.

            Unfortunately for Penn St. that is a football issue as far as the NCAA is concerned. Paterno shouldn’t have the power to overrule his bosses. Penn St did gain an advantage by covering up for Sandusky by protecting the image of the football team (“grand experiment”, “do things the right way”) that was one of their recruiting advantages.

            That being said, I don’t see PSU getting the death penalty.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Mike:

            Strictly as an institutional control issue, was/is UT lacking control when (supposedly) the AD and FB coach influenced the decision to go, or not go to the P16? The impression had been that the pres and a number of admins were in favor.

            Just because higher ups listen to advice and sometimes take it does not indicate a LOIC situation exists. Sometimes it shows good judgement on their part, sometimes bad, and in PSU’s case apparently terrible. But that doesn’t make it the underlings decision.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @cc – I agree there is some gray area between the decider/influencer roles. There are other issues NCAA issues to worry about. See page 37 of the Freeh report.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            There are other issues NCAA issues to worry about. See page 37 of the Freeh report

            Woah. Typo city. I meant to write that other NCAA issues to worry about are on page 37 of the Freeh report.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            PSU needs to work with the NCAA and BIG 10 to get PSU, the NCAA, and the Big 10 off the hook on this bullshit. A single and complete settlement.

            IMO, PSU has already paid a tremendous price, and will continue to pay a tremendous price, for what has happened. I personally think the NCAA and BIG ought to stay completely out of it, as this does NOT involve on-the-field competitive issues. People talking about “competitve advantage” of non-disclosure are just blowing smoke out their ass, imo.This does not directly involve on-the-field competition, and everybody knows it. However, no one in authority will have the balls to say otherwise, so PSU needs to step up and take its lumps….to me, the most logical aspect would be to prevent PSU from playing for the BIG title and/or participating in the playoffs for a couple of years…….you can throw in some politically correct education and prevention nonsense if you want…….that’s all that should happen.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @PSUhockey
            Thanks for your thoughts. Hopefully people will understand that PSU alumni, students, and fans, are not monolithic regarding the deification of Joe Paterno. However, we ARE mostly united in our love of the university! Separating the two can be difficult for outsiders, because we have allowed the media to make Joe Paterno the face of the university.

            Like

          • largeR says:

            @mushroomgod
            Thankyou for your reasoned thoughts. A case could be made, if one would just want to consider football issues only(hard to do at this time), that PSU football has actually underperformed since the mid to late 90s. IMO, the competitive advantage reaped by having Paterno as coach, was negated by the disadvantage of having Paterno as coach. Again, my opinion only. Certainly, not revealing Sandusky in 2001 was to the benefit of PSU. We will, going forward, now pay for that unconscionable mistake in spades.

            The

            Like

          • Michael in Raleigh says:

            I do feel really bad for Penn State alumni and fans. I have some friends who graduated from there and remain big fans. They have two kids whom they dress in Penn State gear, which they have every right to do. Fortunately those kids are young enough for mist of their peers to pretty oblivious to what has happened at Penn State, and so the kids are fairly safe from the kind of ridicule that certainly must be happening for kids who are Penn State fans and are, say, at the middle or high school level. Kids at that age are going to be told they’re fans of child molesters, if not worse, because that’s the kind of thing kids do. Penn State’s leaders failed at so many levels. Their alumni deserve better than this. Their alumni’s children, I.e., their youngest fans, deserve way better than this. And, it should go without saying, those victims deserved so much more.

            Like

        • Michael in Raleigh says:

          er@Flp_ND,

          I don’t think reducing scholarships by 35/year (not just 15/year) is a joke. 50/year would cripple the program without killing it. Winning at PSU with that much of a competitive disadvantage would be nearly impossible. I mean, it is one thing trying to convince a recruit to come to USC, with that player knowing they’re only down ten scholarships/year for three years. It’s altogether another trying to recruit someone to come to a program with a seedy, disgusting past hanging over it, where the team has 35 fewer scholarship players on the team for not one or two years, but for five. Plus, with no bowl game for five years, who with any talent would want to play for that team? I’m telling you, the program would be crippled. It could make PSU as bad as Duke in the mid-2000’s was or Temple was in the 90’s. But it would still keep the program alive, which would prevent the crushing of small businesses and the destruction of the remainder of PSU’s athletic program.

          What’s really much more important is that Penn State undergoes drastic reform. Shutting down the program when the truly guilty parties are going to prison does not make things better. It doesnt , in and of itself, prevent something like this from happening again. But requiring PSU to change the way it runs itself in such a way that ensures safety and accountability at all levels WILL make a difference. I agree with the idea that the BOT probably needs to be cleaned out, too, but the bigger question is, “Where do they go from there?

          By the way, FLP, do not mistake me for some Penn State apologist who wants the program to get by with a slap on the wrist. I did admire PSU and what they stood for (supposedly), and I respected them as a great university. I even have some friends who went there, and my cousin got her Ph.D from there. But I do care way more about the welfare of children than I do about any sports team. As a matter of fact, I work for an organization that is centered around youth services. When I first found out about the Sandusky thing, it made me disgusted and angry. I work often with kids who are now around the age Sandusky’s victims were at the time they were attacked. Even The idea that someone could hurt those kids just makes my stomach hurt. So, even though I don’t yet have children, I do have an understanding of just how important it is to have children’s safety at the top of every priority list. Then, to find out these guys knew what happened, only to put their own careers and the school’s brand name ahead of children’s lives? Hey, I want them in jail for as long as the law allows. And, yes, the program should be punished too, since it was the breeding ground for those boys ruined lives. It should be punished as severely as possible, but not at the expense of people who are not guilty. Therefore, I think the best thing to do would be to keep the program alive, but as a shell of its former self. A five year ban on bowls would do that. 50 scholarships/year would do that., but it wouldng shut down the remainder of the athletic department, or harm the Big Ten, or crush small businesses.

          Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            @ MichaelinRaleigh

            How wounded is Southern Cal, really? They would have made the Inaugural PAC-12 title game, if they would have been allowed to participate in it, and they beat the eventual champs on the road. They finished #6 last year, without the benefit of a postseason. They are back in the Nat’l title picture this season. They may pretend they got their wings clipped, but they really didn’t.

            Twenty years ago Auburn was stripped of scholarships and post-season play, and went undefeated. It took five years for them to win less than 8 games a season. 50 scholarships may be unprecedented, but isn’t going to turn PSU into Temple or Idaho. Let’s be real.

            If the stadium/restaurants/bars stay full, and the money keeps rolling in, how is Penn State being punished? What was the point in going half-way? The criminals here counted on the fact they were too big to be punished…and that is exactly what you are arguing. How dare we allow them to be right on this.

            We’ve not seen anything like the SMU payment plan since they got busted. As corrupt as the SWC was, the only reason can be that TPTB were scared off by looking at what happened to the Mustangs. The next time an administrator has to make the choice to come clean about horrible crimes or try to cover them up, I hope he can partially justify making the right decision to the crazed fans by saying, “look at what they did to Penn State.” I don’t see anyone being able to do that with TV bans, lost scholarships, and “punishing the kids there now” by not letting them go to bowl games.

            If you want the program to rise from the ashes, it has to die first. It would be better if PSU put the program down, but clearly they lack the courage. Shoot, they lack the courage to make a mere political gesture and take down the statue. The NCAA should step in to end the situation for the foreseeable future.

            If Penn State football is taken away, who’s fault is it? I argue it was Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, Schultz, and Curley, and not the NCAAs.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            FLP_NDRox:

            USC has not yet suffered a loss of scholarship. They appealed, and lost, and will be limited to 15 per year for the next 3 years (if my recollection is correct). All they suffered so far is PR. Nothing that actually limited the team. We will see how things are in 3 years.

            Because we haven’t seen it doesn’t mean it isn’t there. The lesson of SMU was not to have the pres and high administration actually actively involved (and stop when caught). That is what underlings are for. Then you can “can” those “actively involved”, being able to, when caught, “clean house”.

            You seem to not distinguish between the criminals and their employers. I think Spanier et al are in the midst of exceptional failure. Why not banish all FB in the state since the State would seem an authority above the PSU admins that did nothing either?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Shultz and Curley will probably go to jail. Spanier may end up in jail. Some of the others, Harmon, the Public Safety head and the legal counsel may be at risk. The first 3 will lose everything they own in lawsuits even if its just in legal fees defending themselves. Penn St. will suffer significant losses on lawsuits and possibly very severe penalties by the DOE.

            There will be plenty to look at and say look at what happened to Penn St. That will be on administrator’s minds a lot more than what happens to their football team.

            Like

          • je304@gmail.com says:

            “But it would still keep the program alive, which would prevent the crushing of small businesses and the destruction of the remainder of PSU’s athletic program.”

            This is unfortunately not really financially grounded. How much money does Duke or Temple make in football revenue? Not much. If the PSU football program becomes, as you said, “a joke” but remains alive, revenue and ticket sales dramatically shrink. This does the exact opposite of what you say, with no money or following you crush small business and the rest of the AD. You can’t have your cake and eat it too. You either punch the whole school and city economy in the face, or you don’t.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            No doubt PSU needs major reforms….and how they accomplish those reforms should be no business of the NCAA, yourself, or FLP.

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            Nor you, ‘Shroom, nor you…at least by your way of thinking.

            If the PSU-PTB lack the politicial wherewithal/courage to do the minimum symbolic gesture and take down Paterno’s statue if only temporarily, they have obviously no intention/ability of reforming a damned thing. If they can’t be the grown-ups, they have to be stopped from ruining the whole industry by association.

            Stubbornness in defiance of accepted practice and embarrassing College athletics is what led to SMU’s right and proper Death Penalty.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            One thing the NCAA could explore is having, as a requirement of membership, all members be open to the levels of openness required of the State schools. ie the privates and semi privates (PSU) engage an independent outside authority ( or cede that authority to the appropriate State) to provide the oversight the state wields over fully State institutions. I know, nobody likes bureaucracy, but an additional layer of oversight has its benefits.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            FLP—By any chance, are you an Obama supporter? Your predilection for sweeping punishments otherwise outside the rule of law is very Obamaesque in character….a little Stalinist also……

            Like

          • Mike says:

            I see we are getting closer to compliance with Godwin’s law….

            Like

          • FLP_NDRox says:

            My point politics at this point are more “None of the Above” than anything, You ‘shroom are little more than a troll, rarely adding anything of note, and are consistently uncivil here for no reason.

            Y’know, if you wanna get into name calling.

            I’m not even advocating salting the earth here. PSU, even if dropped to the Big Ten is too big and too traditional a king to fall as far or as hard as nuveau rich and tiny and private SMU.

            Pplus, let’s be real. I’m only advocation civil penalties here.

            Did you use Obama and Stalin becaus even you have more class than to go with a German reference?

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Nah….Stalinist in that he would arrest and execute, and then define the crime.

            You want the NCAA to punish in ways the NCAA was not established to do….because that’s what your moral sensibility demands.. Thus you talk about symbolic gestures and stubborness in defiance of what YOU think should be done. All very Obamaesque and extra-legal

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Interesting………didn’t know Goodwin had a law………..probably a better analogy is the media hysteria and political correctness that led to the the manslaughter charge in the T. Martin case in Florida…..

            Like

    • bullet says:

      Maybe you auction off the statue with the proceeds to go to a child abuse charity.

      Like

  25. OrderRestored says:

    add2

    Like

  26. ChicagoB1GRed says:

    Frank, regarding PSU, you sound like you were channeling Otter in the Delta trial

    Like

  27. universalmike says:

    PSU is an example of why it’s important to cycle through head coaches every 5-7 years at a major university. That way a school doesn’t become beholden to a certain coach and his influence over the university as a whole ;)

    Like

    • zeek says:

      That’s probably a good way to get rid of the major issues that could go on for decades/years, but the bigger issue is probably just that college football has become such a big revenue generator for everyone that its importance has effectively made it “too big to fail” (as alluded to in the previous thread).

      What college’s athletic department doesn’t derive most of its budget from the football program directly or indirectly, and what community with a major college football program doesn’t derive millions of dollars worth of benefits from that program?

      I mean look at Bobby Petrino, he wasn’t at Arkansas that long before hiring his mistress.

      It’s an institutionalized culture at this point. Changing coaches often can prevent Sandusky-sized issues, but you’d need a culture change to get rid of a lot of the murk that you can find anywhere that big $ college football is played.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        I think, not the coaches, but the administration needs to have a mix of people. Most universities make a point to primarily hire faculty who got their Phd elsewhere. At Penn St., the AD and VP were both former football players. Spanier had been there for a long time. Its the inbred administration that contributed to the problem.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s probably a good point about administrations.

          After watching the fiasco over at UVa the past couple of weeks, it’s pretty clear that the boards and administrations of these universities can run into a lot of same problems that plague large corporations or other institutions in terms of how insular groups regulate themselves.

          I just don’t know what the solution is.

          You look at the gang rape case over in Montana and despite the lack of publicity, that to me is even more shocking than the Sandusky case given that the football players were involved in the gang rape. They’ve also had a bunch of other incidents with Montana’s football program and the police among others have basically just looked the other way. The whole thing is disturbing.

          And to be sure this happens everywhere although not on the scale of some of these situations.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          I’m not sure the size of their board didn’t contribute to the board’s lack of action. Larger boards have trouble working together. And with 30+ members, the head of the board may have not felt it necessary to contract everyone. Most boards I have seen have 7-15 members.

          My biggest concern about this is the board’s finger pointing. They’ve cleaned house at the school. But they have yet to clean house at the board. The tone of the board at the time Paterno was fired wasn’t outrage over the crime, the quotes indicated they were mad at Spanier for not telling them everything and at Paterno for suggesting they deal with the problem instead of dealing with him since he was going away anyway. It was almost an ego thing. “We’re in charge so you need to treat us with respect.” Again, they were wrapped up in their internal issues instead of the problem.

          Like

  28. bullet says:

    Frank, your point extends to a lot of problems that are of a lesser scale than PSU.

    Do alumni really want to win so much that their school becomes known as “Thug U.” Do you want to bring players with questionable character who get together to committ armed robbery? Do you want players with such bad judgement they can’t figure out they will get arrested if they drive without a license?

    If you’ve got a bunch of college kids, you will have some alcohol and drug abuse problems and the occassional bar fight. You deal with it and move on. But when you have things like armed robbery that a non-athlete student would not do, you have really gone over the line. When you put pressure on professors for grades, have plagiarism and non-existent classes or you let illiterates stay in the program for 4 years, you need to change that culture and not recruit players who can’t compete in the classroom.

    Like

  29. David Brown says:

    I really hope I am wrong, but I believe Penn State is getting the Death Penalty. With the exception of domestic terrorism like 9/11, there are two things above all that is despised in our Society, and those are pedophiles and those who enable their behavior. In the mind of the NCAA, if the enablers are allowed to get away with what they did, then it will become anything goes. People at Miami. USC and the rest will make the case in the Court of Public Opinion that why should our programs be penalized, and why should innocents have to pay for the Pete Carroll’s & Reggie Bush’s of the world? Beyond that, they have to wonder if they could see another CCNY Basketball or Black Sox betting scandal, or what is currently happening with the New Orleans Saints and unlike Landis (Black Sox) or Goodell (Saints), we (the NCAA) becomes essentially powerless?

    Like

  30. cutter says:

    When looking at the Penn State case, one of the things to keep in mind is the actual value football has brought and will bring to the university as a whole.

    Back in April 2011, then PSU President Graham Spanier told new Big Ten member Nebraska that Penn State’s joining the B10 “played a big part in changing the perception of the school from being a regional university to a national university”. See http://www.dailynebraskan.com/mobile/news/penn-state-president-assures-nebraska-will-have-smooth-transition-to-big-ten-1.2546147

    The article also talks about how the number of out-of-state applicants went up since 1990, the graduation rates increased from 57% to 90% and the SAT scores for all applicants also rose. Spanier also talked about the Committee on Institutional Cooperation (CIC) and all the assets and cost savings that consortium brought to Penn State.

    By PSU’s own account, the research dollar expenditures at the school grew from $226M in 1989 (one year before the B10 announcement was made) to $804M in the most recent fiscal year. See http://www.research.psu.edu/about/reports/annual-report-of-research-activity

    While football at Penn State wasn’t the sole reason why they were added to the Big Ten in 1990, it certainly was a contributing factor. Add in its ongoing role as a platform to market the university on television, to solicit donations from alumns and other interested parties and to appeal to perspective students and you can see that the value of the football program goes well beyond the revenue it provides to support the rest of the athletic department.

    That’s something to keep in mind when crafting any sort of punishment or response to what happened at Penn State. When you’re looking for motivation behind Spanier’s actions in particular, keep in mind what was at stake not for the football program, but also the university as a whole.

    Also be mindful the level at which these decisions were taken. The actions taken weren’t solely done by one individual in the athletic department. This crept up in the university president’s office and the nature of the offense goes far beyond getting illegal benefits or a competitive advantage over an opponent. This was an out and out crime perpetrated against the most vulnerable members of our society.

    While I wouldn’t touch anything Penn State does in regards to its academic mission like forcing it out of the CIC, for example, it’s also difficult to do anything to the football program that won’t affect the university in some way, shape or form. If you make the argument that PSU shouldn’t be given the death penalty because of the effect on businesses in Happy Valley or how it might touch on donations, etc., then you should also have been against the death penalty for any school, regardless of the circumstances. Athletic departments and football programs don’t operate in a bubble–that’s why so much time and money are invested in them by the universities in the first place.

    If there’s any thing the NCAA and the Big Ten should do,I have one recommendation that should be considered. The B10 pays annual conference distributions to each of its schools with the amount in FY 2013 slated to be around $25M and with part of that money coming direct from the NCAA through the men’s basketball tournament.

    The B10 in concert with the NCAA should consider fining or withholding some sum of money from that annual conference distribution through a fixed period of time. PSU is one of the big money makers in college athletics with the most recent profit total being a little over $30M for the entire department (including expenses from non-revenue sports). The B10 could withhold all its conference distributions from PSU and the athletic department would still be profitable. While I wouldn’t necessarily suggest that, the amount should be perhaps 40% or 50% of the conference distribution per year for five years (a little over $10M to $12M in FY 2013). That’s enough to make a statement (especially if that money goes to an appropriate charity), but it won’t cripple the athletic department so much that there will be a major problem with its daily operations or with its support to the existing student athletes at PSU.

    See http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/07/17/penn-state-s-economic-fallout-will-the-sandusky-scandal-sink-a-whole-city.html

    Like

  31. Brian says:

    Frank,

    (1) College Football Playoff Details Dripping Out and Confusing Everyone

    “Please Choose the Sugar or Cotton So I Can Stop Calling This The Pompous Champions Bowl”

    I don’t think they will choose. They’ll rotate the game between the two so it is held all 12 years – perhaps 6 in each.

    “That is, if the Rose Bowl isn’t a semifinal in a given year and a Big Ten team is a semifinalist, the Rose will have a Big Ten replacement no matter what record or ranking such replacement has at the time (whereas the current BCS system requires any non-champ replacement needs to be in the top 14). On the flip side, in the years that the Rose Bowl is a semifinal host and the Big Ten champ isn’t in the top 4, then that Big Ten champ will go to one of the other top 6 bowls.”

    Notes:

    1. When the Rose hosts a semi and the B10 champ makes the playoff, the runner up is not guaranteed a spot in another host bowl. It would be unusual for the runner up not to be top 12ish, but it could happen and then they would be left out. I’m not saying you said otherwise, I just wanted to point it out.

    2. This is where the Rose and Champs differ. I believe the Champs will host B12/SEC all 12 years by shifting locations (probably between Sugar and Cotton). The B10 and P12 need to sign a secondary deal with the Fiesta to achieve this same thing.

    3. The $80M per year is evidence why the B10 and P12 need a supplementary deal for the Rose. They could miss out on a lot of money in 2-4 years if Pasadena is their only site.

    “The SportsBusiness Daily report also indicated that the commissioners expected to have the Rose Bowl and Allstate AT&T Chick-fil-A Breakfast of Champions Bowl host semifinals in the same years, which perplexes me to no end. What’s the point of doing that? Would this mean that there could be years where there isn’t any semifinal on New Year’s Day when those two bowls aren’t hosting semifinals? Why would a TV partner paying billions of dollars for this playoff (which is basically the entire impetus for this playoff being created in the first place) not want at least one semifinal in prime time every New Year’s Day? By the same token, why would such TV partner pay for any semifinal games played on low-rated New Year’s Eve when most of America is outside of their homes getting hammered and not near a TV?”

    Best guesses:
    1. The commissioners haven’t talked in depth to the TV people about their plans, and will change things once they find out how much they are leaving on the table.

    2. If they host the same years, it makes it easier to keep appropriate geographic pairings of games each year while keeping a rotation of sites.

    3. They believe 2 semis on 1 day has a multiplicative effect on ratings/value. Both semis on NYE would be sufficient to get fans to adjust their plans while the Rose and Champs would be more than enough to get viewers on NYD. Both semis on NYD would crush the ratings, allowing lesser numbers on NYE. Split semis would give value to both days.

    4. Only the Rose actually has their TV deal locked in. Maybe the Champs won’t always be at 8 on NYD.

    5. The commissioners are wrong and they won’t host semis the same years.

    “The goals of a selection committee, bowls and TV networks aren’t always going to be aligned here. A selection committee will presumably want to award bids based on merit, bowls want teams with the best ticket buying traveling fan bases and TV networks want the most attractive national brand names.”

    I think the committee makes all the decisions and on top of their rankings, they’ll also consider bowl-relevant factors such as geography and recent bowl appearances in determining locations. In many years, the big 5 could take 9 of the 12 slots so there won’t be many choices to make. TV is basically bidding on 2 semis, the NCG and 3 BCS bowls. I don’t think the match-ups in the 3 games will change their bids very much.

    “Is this structurally going to end up being an end-of-the-year poll only using 10 to 20 people as opposed to 115 people? If so, why is that an improvement over the current usage of the Harris Poll?”

    Pretty much. It sounds like 15-20 people will be used and they’ll start work in mid-season. The improvement will come from them paying more attention to the games, I suppose. Administrators tend to not be as biased as the former coaches in the Harris poll, but they also know less about football. I’m guessing they’ll lean heavily on the info they are provided, whatever that is (AP and computer rankings, SOS data, etc).

    “How is strength of schedule going to be taken into account? … Anyone that thinks that SEC teams are going to get docked for playing cupcakes in their non-conference schedules are completely misguided – SOS rankings help the SEC even MORE than subjective human polls.”

    Nobody knows, but several people have mentioned OOC SOS. It’s possible that the committee will look at overall SOS to separate the big boys from everyone else, but they might use OOC SOS (or weight those games more heavily) when separating amongst the big boys.

    (2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front

    “This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously.”

    Tell that to The Dude.

    I think the long term money strain will eventually crack the ACC if they don’t recover in FB soon. The B12 and SEC are going to get further ahead with bowl revenue (Champs > Orange), and then playoff revenue may also hurt the ACC (depends how much is based on BCS era success). Add to that the renegotiated SEC TV deal and the new B12 deal, and the financial divide may eventually get too large to ignore for a couple of schools.

    (3) Little Glass Houses For You and Me

    “What troubles me, and as Jason Gay of the Wall Street Journal poignantly pointed out in this piece, is that there’s an argument being parroted by many people that the “insular culture” in State College that allowed a massive coverup to protect the Nittany Lion football program is somehow a unique Penn State problem.”

    I agree every major football school has some of this culture. However, I also think the extent of the cultural problem is unique to PSU. PSU is the perfect storm of several factors:

    1. Being in an isolated small town.
    2. Not sharing a state with a major rival with fans always looking for any possible dirt.
    3. Being away from major media always looking to break a story and tear down a program/coach.
    4. Having the problems happen in the era before blogging. Does anybody believe rumors wouldn’t leak out nowadays?
    5. Keeping the same highly successful coach for over 50 years building a huge bank of good will and trust.
    6. Having friends and former players for said coach in almost every position of power.
    7. Having the small town culture lead to a culture of trust instead of verification in governance (BoT, etc).

    I don’t think any school will ever combine all those factors again. Coaches don’t last as long and don’t get trusted as much. Media is more and more invasive. Bloggers hear every rumor and publish them. America is getting more and more cynical. People are more willing to talk about things they would keep quiet before as they understand the impact.

    Like

    • weavergm says:

      Why rotate the Champions Bowl? The Sugar and the Cotton Bowls are separate entities. One will outbid the other. Why would the SEC and the Big 12 take a pay cut every other year?

      Like

      • Brian says:

        You rotate so that you have it all 12 years. If they stick with one site, the game disappears when a semi is hosted there instead. By moving it, they get the roughly $80M all 12 years instead of only 8 or 10. I doubt the bids would be all that different anyway, plus they can preserve historic ties to those two games for the conferences.

        Like

    • Nemo says:

      @Brian

      “(2) All Quiet on the Conference Realignment Front

      “This means that the chances of Florida State, Clemson, or any other ACC schools defecting to the Big 12 or even SEC have dropped precipitously.”

      Tell that to The Dude.”

      Um, the Dude predicted FSU to the Big 12 on Tuesday. It is now officially Thursday in my time zone. I think the Dude likes to see his name in print.

      Nemo

      Like

      • bullet says:

        You may be right about the name in print, but the Tuesday thing was a joke by him. The last month he has been ranting about big bad evil Texas and Deloss Dodds have deprived WVU of a fellow eastern time zone member.

        Like

  32. Phil says:

    People have touched on the bad idea of playing the new six “BCS” bowls on new Year’s Eve and New Year’s Day, mostly in the context of the game held on the evening of NY Eve being at risk for lowered viewership.

    I question the idea of packing the games so close together regardless of when they are held. I could make the investment to spend a week where my nightly viewing was a BCS game or the championship game. I, and I believe a lot of fans, are going to tailor my schedule to watch the 2 playoff games and only the 1-2 non-playoff games that are most compelling.

    Look at 2014 for example. Only a true diehard or someone without a life is going to watch 9-10 hours of college football on 12/31 and 1/1 when they know there is also going to be 6 hours of NFL wild card playoffs on 1/3 and 1/4.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Phil,

      The BCS TV numbers showed that spreading the games out over several weeknights didn’t work well. Fans still ignored all but the most compelling BCS games and the NCG.

      Like

      • cutter says:

        I agree with Brian. The primary reason why those six games are clustered over two days is that it allows large scale mass promotion for those events. It also puts the non-playoff bowls on the same dates as the ones with playoffs with the idea that more viewers will watch those games in concert with the bowls that have playoff implications.

        The BCS bowls were losing ratings in part because they were spread out, but also because some of them weren’t very interesting (Oklahoma v. Connecticut in Fiesta Bowl comes to mind). The other problem those bowls had is that they weren’t relevant in any degree to the BCS national championship game.

        We’ll see how well these games do in terms of ratings, but given the scheduling, it makes you wonder if TPTB want to see one network (most likely ABC/ESPN) broadcast these games because of the cross-promotion angle. The reason I think this is if the non-playoff bowls continue to lose traction like the BCS bowls have been doing recently, then college football might feel compelled to rethink the post-season again.

        Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      The reason college football “lost” New Years Day is because it is now the worst college football weekend for volume of content.

      In the ol’ days, New Years Day was the one day a year you could get up, eat breakfast, and spend the next 12 hrs watching football…two games at the same time…all day.

      Now with cable, third tier rights, etc., on any given football Saturday you can watch at least 3 games from 11-11 EST, and probably two more night games on the west coast afterwards. UNLESS it is New years day, where the only time multiple games are on is c. 1pm EST, the Rose Bowl is the only highlight, and the rest of BCS games are later in the week. Frankly, I’d rather watch the novelty of outdoor hockey than a non-championship game played between two teams I have no emotional interest in…esp. if it’s looking like a snoozer.

      Gimme the old days, when I could flip back and forth between the Sugar and Orange bowls.

      Like

      • texmex says:

        I agree with the above comment about NYD. It lost value when viewers didn’t have multiple options for games. What drives ratings is what happened in 2006 when ESPN started airing a weekly national primetime game on ABC. Mike Slive complained about it asking what they were doing creating competition for his SEC game. ESPN told him to watch what happens….his SEC games on ESPN drew better ratings. ESPN made sure ESPN2 had a competing SEC game and showed better games on ESPNU. College Football on Saturday night became a stop down for viewers nationwide. Fans will stop down and make it priority when their are multiple options they can switch back and forth. People rarely watch the entire game unless it’s their team.

        You want to recapture NYD? Put 4 early games on between 10:00 and 4:00…then the Rose Bowl…and then 2 games at night.

        Put the two playoff semi-final games on a 4th Saturday of December each year…that becomes another stop down. You then have a 4-7 day break to generate hype for NYD and place the value back on NYD. Putting a playoff semi-final on NYE? Now you’ve created competition for the playoff….planning for college football vs planning for NYE plans.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I thought it had value when there were just 4 games. You normally had the Cotton and Sugar early, Rose in the afternoon and Orange at night. I don’t want 4 games on at noon. I can see the value in multiple games, but not a flood. I know last year I had more than 1 game I wanted to watch at noon. Now I’ve got ties in the Big 12, SEC and lived in Big 10 country as well, so I may be much more inclined to watch schools other than my main team than a typical viewer.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            Its true there are lots of games all the time (a warning from basketball? overexposure?). But NYD got minor bowls on it instead of the big matchups. And the BCS games got moved off NYD. It ceased to be the day when all the big games were on. The big games were scattered about. Houston/Penn St. was a pretty minor bowl and was on NYD last year. I was interested because I was interested in seeing UH, but a bowl that low on the totem bowl never made it to NYD in the past.

            Like

          • Jake says:

            Bullet – it was probably a typo, but the Totem Bowl might be a good name. As long as bowl games are going to be around, they should at least throw in a few more puns; the Cotton Bowl shouldn’t have to bear that burden alone.

            Like

      • Morgan Wick says:

        Oddly, multiple games on New Year’s day became a victim of college football’s wild popularity. Even without the BCS, no one dares challenge (or dilute) the massive audiences tuning in for the Rose and whatever big game is in primetime. The Rose and (for lack of a better word) Champions are events now, like the Super Bowl or Final Four, and no one programs anything worth a darn against those sorts of events.

        Like

  33. Morgan Wick says:

    I’m so glad to attend a school that actually cares about academics and isn’t obsessed about sports.

    Like

    • marmutia says:

      You’re right, Morgan. I’m going to go outside and burn my worthless land-grant university diploma right this minute. Hopefully, I can get into a more refined and academically inclined school soon.

      Like

      • Morgan Wick says:

        Whoa, I didn’t mean to imply that academics at schools like Penn State are worthless, the emphasis was supposed to be on the “doesn’t care about sports” part.

        Like

  34. bullet says:

    Pitt agreed to the same deal as Syracuse-$7.5 million and they get to escape the BE in 2013. BE lawsuit against TCU was also dropped today with no comment. So the BE lawsuits are done-assuming Boise doesn’t back out.

    Like

    • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

      TCU also settled with the big East yesterday for $5 million. Along with settling up with Pitt and ‘cuse, $20 million in one week is not a bad haul for the big East.

      I settled 3 cases this week too, but I’m a little short when compared to the big East’s lawyers.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Big East statement said TCU paid the $5M.

      So Big East ended up getting $20M from WVU, $5M from TCU, $15M from Pitt and Syracuse. It doesn’t make up for losing the schools but that’s $40M in exit fees.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Of course, those schools leaving is a big part of why they’re being relegated considering that the remainder of the conference is former C-USA/MWC schools or similar.

        Like

  35. Brian says:

    http://www.indystar.com/article/20120718/SPORTS/120718030/

    Indy isn’t going to bid on the first few NCGs. They have too many other events coming.

    Like

  36. Eric says:

    I’ll probably have more comments tomorrow on your post, but for now I want to just echo that I very much agree with wanting them to just choose a bowl (or multiple as Brian suggests, which would work well for them, but I don’t think that’s likely given the way things have been laid out so far). The Champions Bowl would be a great name if a) it was actually going to be the name and b) it was likely to have champions in it fairly regularly.

    Like

    • Morgan Wick says:

      It’s kind of a generic name. The good bowls fit a pattern: Rose, Sugar, Cotton, Orange, etc. “Champions Bowl” actually sounds like a name not worthy of a champion. The best bowl names are no more than six letters long, ideally rolling off the tongue with the “bowl” at the end.

      Like

  37. Morgan Wick says:

    It occurs to me that the selection committee could be selecting as few as two teams to go to non-semifinal bowls some years, and that that could happen more often than six. Message to the non-New Year’s Day conferences: get in the playoff or get out. Looks like they traded access to the BCS bowls as a whole for access to the playoff, which I guess is a trade they’d make (unless they’re the Big East). And I think that is why Notre Dame will either take the Orange Bowl’s offer or, less likely, ask for some pretty generous assurances from the selection committee for access bowl spots, perhaps even more generous than what the BCS gave them (think “guaranteed spot with eight wins” or “if we’re even being considered, we’re in”). Wouldn’t be surprised to see the Golden Domers involved in the Orange contract negotiations either.

    Like

  38. Mike says:

    Big Ten response to scandal

    http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/jim-delany-wants-the-power-to-fire-coaches/30771


    The proposal, part of a plan being circulated among Big Ten leaders, would give James E. Delany, who has overseen the league since 1989, and a powerful committee of conference presidents the ability to penalize individual members of an institution, should their actions significantly harm the league’s reputation.

    The sanctions, spelled out in a document obtained by The Chronicle, could include financial penalties, suspension, or termination of employment.

    [snip]

    Big Ten officials are still in the early stages of debating how to handle fallout from the scandal. Among other ideas, the league’s presidents and chancellors could consider removing Penn State from the conference, one Big Ten leader told The Chronicle.

    [snip]

    But the conference’s bylaws prescribe potentially severe penalties for member institutions that break lesser rules. Any Big Ten university that employs or retains workers who intentionally falsify or deliberately fail to provide complete and accurate information during an investigation may be required to “show cause why its membership in the conference should not be suspended or terminated,” the Big Ten’s 2011-12 handbook says.

    At least four top Penn State officials—including Graham B. Spanier, the former president, and Timothy M. Curley, the athletic director on administrative leave—failed to paint an accurate picture of how much they knew about Jerry Sandusky

    [snip]

    The Big Ten’s 12-member Council of Presidents and Chancellors must approve any decision to suspend, expel, or place on probation any member of the conference. According to the conference handbook, expulsion requires a vote of not less than 60 percent of the full council (a Big Ten spokesman said that figure is actually 70 percent, or eight members, which will be reflected in the 2012-13 handbook).

    The Big Ten does not have a contingency scheduling plan should Penn State’s football team be banned from playing this or any season

    Like

    • Ross says:

      That just reads like someone took all of the laws that could potentially be used to expel PSU and put them together in a story. I don’t see any record of the Big Ten saying that the expulsion/suspension of PSU from the conference is seriously on the table.

      Like

    • Pablo says:

      Hmmm…”the league’s presidents and chancellors could consider removing Penn State from the conference”

      …and folks are worried about the NCAA letter, investigation and potential penalties?

      Before today, I would have never really believed that there was much chance that the PSU scandal could actually lead to more realignment. The vultures are going to start circling on this comment (B1G will try to quite this talk, while ACC and Big East ears perk-up).

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      I think that giving the conference commissioner and/or other presidents the authority to fire a coach is a very bad idea. The schools hire and pay the coaches, not the commissioner. The commissioner is supposed to work for the universities, not vice versa. Was this Delany’s idea? The title of that article makes it sound like he wants that power. Personally I would be very worried if Slive was trying to get that kind of power. Now if the other presidents and the commissioner want to apply pressure on a school to get that school to take a certain action, that is fine. But for a commissioner or other presidents to be able to just up and fire a coach, that sets a bad precedent IMO.

      Like

    • jj says:

      Get ND on the phone.

      Like

  39. Mike says:

    WAC News via Brian Murphy (@murphsturph)


    – Big Sky commish says league could combine with WAC to keep 2 AQ bids in hoops. Says it is a longshot however

    – [Big Sky commish] Fullerton on Idaho: “Good possibility they play with us in some way.” Says football likely to try independence

    – Fullerton says on KTIK that Idaho going indy in FB, Big Sky in other sports would be “good enough for us.”

    Like

  40. Mike says:

    http://www.tomahawknation.com/2012/5/15/3021181/is-fsu-really-the-most-valuable-team-in-the-acc

    Found this while looking at something else. It attempts to take the ACC’s media contract and assign dollars to the school that earned it. Its interesting.

    Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Did not expect Clemson to be that high, or Maryland and UVA that low. Can’t comment on his methodology, but would love to see that kind of analysis on other leagues.

      Like

    • Pablo says:

      It is an interesting analysis…converting TV viewership into the ‘relative value’ of each school in the ACC. The author clearly believes that FSU has to carry a heavy burden and that there are too many free riders (especially Wake and BC) in the league.

      The financial conclussion is obvious: even in a relatively mediocre (by FSU standards) 2011 football season, FSU is still the biggest brand in the ACC. A few years ago, being recognized as the biggest brand and gaining school reputation would have been seen as positive. Now the analysis is spun to prove that FSU is being exploited.

      Like

  41. Eric says:

    A few thoughts after your post:

    1. People want to take an all or nothing approach to Penn State and NCAA. If it’s an NCAA matter a lot of people feel the death penalty is warranted. In reality though, this is at most a matter on the outskirts of what the NCAA was intended to deal with meaning if there is any punishment, it should be fairly light.

    2. I’m not entirely sure New Years Eve nights are all that bad. It’s not traditional, but people tend to get time off and a lot would probably watch these while doing other things too. The night itself may not be ideal still, but having some big really bowls on New Years Eve could also help keep people going through New Years Day.

    Example to think of: It seems crazy that the Gator/Outback/Citrus Bowls are almost all at the same time. These could all be different times and possibly get higher ratings individually. It’s arguably the combined experience the networks are looking for though. You can say you have a very wide audience watching for the event. The same may hold on a bigger scale over 2 days.

    Like

  42. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The town of Grambling petitions the NCAA to restore Eddie Robinson as the D-1 coach with the most all-time wins. As you recall, Penn State fired JoePa one week after he passed up Coach Rob. I don’t know how the NCAA can take wins away from JoePa and PSU, but I’ll always view this record as tainted.

    http://www.thenewsstar.com/article/20120719/UPDATES01/120719019/Grambling-petitions-remove-Joe-Paterno-wins-record?odyssey=tab|topnews|text|FRONTPAGE

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Alan,

      If they decide the cover-up in 2001 was a major violation, they could potentially vacate all the wins since then. Certainly they could take away a season’s worth.

      Like

  43. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8182621/penn-state-nittany-lions-trustee-steve-garban-steps-downs-jerry-sandusky-scandal

    The former chair of the PSU BoT (he was chair when the scandal broke) has resigned from the board.

    From his letter of resignation:
    “I officially joined the Penn State community in 1955 as a freshman. I joined the Board of Trustees in July 1998, and I was honored to serve as chair in 2010 and 2011.”

    From the article:
    “Garban is a 1959 Penn State graduate who was very close to Paterno. He was one of four Penn State leaders to visit Paterno in his home in November 2004 to try to urge the coach to retire.”

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Looked at a NY paper and CNN on the same topic because of ESPN’s emphasis on the death penalty. Neither article mentioned it. I wanted to see if ESPN was just mentioning the sports angle or if that was a primary concern. Looks like it was just ESPN emphasizing the sports angle.
      They have a lot more to be worried about than the NCAA.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        ESPN is a sports network. Of course they’ll focus on that aspect, and they should.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          Well if the trustees were talking to CNN or NY Times about the sports angle, I would say they need to get rid of those trustees immediately because PSU has bigger problems.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            That’s the whole problem, though, right? A failure to see the bigger picture. On the other hand, they may have been asked only about the sports angle.

            Like

  44. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/nba/story/_/id/8182973/nba-adds-three-additional-uses-instant-replay-2012-13-season

    The NBA is the first truly major American sports league to completely sell out. Uniforms will carry ads starting in 2013. How long until uniforms look like soccer jerseys with just the name of the sponsor and not the team?

    Like

    • gobux says:

      I’m would be ok with this if it would mean less commercial breaks.

      Like

    • Eric says:

      Terrible. Glad I don’t watch the NBA too much.

      Sponsors on jerseys are a big turn off to me. I think I could get a little into soccer, but our local team (the Crew) has some sponsor name right in the middle of their jerseys and that makes me avoid trying.

      I just hope ‘t want to see this in baseball or college sports (the sports I care about).

      Like

    • @Brian – The business side of me isn’t bothered by this. With people watching fewer commercials, it’s actually surprising that American sports leagues have held out this long. This was going to happen sooner or later. There’s going to continue to be an increased premium for in-game advertising of various forms. The NFL, for instance, charges an outrageous amount to Motorola just so that they can have its logo on coaches’ headsets. One can imagine what a logo on players would be worth (and NBA players, in particular, have much more international marketing appeal compared to any other American athletes).

      The aesthetic side of me is worried more about the look since I’m very traditionalist in terms of my jersey tastes. The Premier League jerseys generally look good to me even though the logo of the sponsor is actually much more prominent than the club logo since there’s fairly traditional styling otherwise. When sponsors start wanting more than a patch and start demanding stylistic changes to the jersey overall, that’s where I have an issue in terms of personal taste.

      Like

    • Mike says:

      Paul Lukas’s call to arms

      http://www.uni-watch.com/2012/07/20/nba-planning-to-add-uniform-advertising-in-2013/


      But maybe we can still get them to go that route if we make our voices heard. This is a genuine red-alert crisis, people — even if you don’t care about the NBA (I don’t much care about it myself), this move would open the door for uniform advertising in the other Big Four leagues. The threat is real, and the time to respond to it is now: Tweet to @nba with the hashtag #NoUniAds, send an e-mail to the league, call the league office (they’re in the book: 212-407-8000). Do all of those things, and tell them in no uncertain terms, “NO UNIFORM ADS!” And if the ads will make you less likely to buy a retail jersey, be sure to tell them that too.

      Remember, folks, all that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. Your uni-verse needs you. You know what to do.

      Like

  45. Brian says:

    http://preseason.stassen.com/consensus/2012.html#big-ten

    Consensus preseason predictions for 2012.

    B10:
    OSU is a slight favorite over WI to win the East with a huge gap to #3 (PSU, IL and PU are all close together. MI is the clear favorite to win the West over MSU and NE.

    ACC – FSU vs VT
    B12 – OU in a landslide
    P12 – OR vs USC
    SEC – UGA vs LSU (AL is close)

    NCG – USC vs LSU

    Like

  46. Brian says:

    http://capstonereport.com/2012/07/16/bama-great-calls-auburn-out-for-paying-reuben-foster/16896/

    Bama loses a recruit and a former star player claims Auburn bought the recruit. Sour grapes or the beginning of Auburn getting caught cheating (again)?

    Like

    • bamatab says:

      If the NCAA didn’t hit auburn for playing a kid whose dad was proven to be pimping his kid out to the highest bidder, then they won’t do anything to them for moving a kid from LaGrange, GA to Auburn, AL to finish out his senior year in high school.

      Like

  47. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/brett-mcmurphy/19614875/Bid-process-for-Champions-Bowl-to-begin-next-week

    Good info on the Champs Bowl.
    * Bidding starts next week
    * They expect just one site (I don’t)
    * They expect to match the $80M for the Rose
    * Dallas is the favorite right now over Atlanta
    * The SEC would welcome a game in the new recruiting territory of TX (not sure how thrilled the east is with that)
    * “Also, the Champions Bowl will not be the actual name of the bowl, sources said. Instead it will assume the name of the bowl where it’s held, such as the Cotton Bowl or Chick-fil-A Bowl, etc.”
    * There was no mention of New Orleans or the Sugar Bowl hosting it. It’s a shame to see that connection lost.

    Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      I guess if the Cotton becomes the SEC/B12 game, then the Sugar will do its best to make up for losing its tie-in to the SEC by bidding to be a frequent host of semifinals.

      With 24 semifinal bowls over 12 years, and the Rose and Cotton getting only 2 each over that time, other bowls are going to have to get more than 4. Shoot, if the Orange Bowl also ends up wanting to host only 2 over the 12 years, the Sugar, Fiesta, and (presumably) the Chick-fil-a will have 18 of the 24 semifinals. And I wouldn’t be surprised if the Orange Bowl takes that same angle. The ACC owns the TV rights to that game, just as the SEC/B12 will own the TV rights to their game. Seems like it would be in the ACC’s best interests to be in to appears in the game they basically own rather than frequent semifinals forcing the league to give the income to to other leagues.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      Sounds like it’ll become the Cotton Bowl based on all of that. I doubt Chick-fil-A can outbid JerryWorld combined with one of two bowls outside the BCS with the same $ capacity (Cap One and Cotton).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Also, if Atlanta and New Orleans end up in the semifinals rotation a lot more, doesn’t that just help the SEC in the long run?

        If they take the Cotton Bowl for the Champions Bowl, then Atlanta and New Orleans will end up hosting at least 8-10 semifinals games over the next decade…

        Like

        • Eric says:

          Depends on the Orange Bowl. If the Orange hosts more too, then you are talking 20 semi-finals for four games or about 5 a piece.

          You are right on the locations not being ideal here for everyone else at all though. I was really hoping the Sugar Bowl would get this as that would help out the rotation along with going with tradition.

          If the Sugar Bowl had it, instead we’d likely have 5 semi-finals in Dallas, Miami, Atlanta, and Phoenix. At least then only 1 game would be squarely in SEC only controlled territory.

          Like

    • Michael in Raleigh says:

      If indeed the Rose, Cotton (Champions), and Orange Bowls do end up hosting only 2 semifinals each in order to protect the media rights interests of the conferences which own them, then the remaining three bowls will host six semifinals each over the twelve years. In effect, the “contract bowls” would hold a semifinal once and then again six years later, while the other three (for the sake of argument, let’s say they’re the Fiesta, Sugar, and Chick-fil-a) would host a semifinal every other year.

      I could see two six-year rotations going like this:

      Year 1,

      Rose: Pac-12 vs. Big Ten
      Fiesta: Semifinal #1
      Cotton: SEC vs. B12
      Sugar: At-large vs. At-large
      Chick-fil-a: Semifinal #2
      Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large

      Year 2

      Rose: P12 vs. B1G
      Fiesta: At-large vs. At-large
      Cotton: SEC vs. B12
      Sugar: Semifinal #1
      Chick-fil-a: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large
      Orange: Semifinal #2

      Year 3

      Same as Year 1

      Year 4

      Rose: P12 vs. B1G
      Fiesta: B12 vs. At-large
      Cotton: Semifinal #1
      Sugar: Semifinal #2
      Chick-fil-a: SEC vs. At-large*
      Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or At-large

      Year 5

      Same as Years 1 and 3

      Year 6

      Rose: Semifinal #1
      Fiesta: P12 vs. B12
      Cotton: SEC vs. B12
      Sugar: Semifinal #2
      Chick-fil-a: At-large vs. At-large
      Orange: ACC vs. Notre Dame or at-large

      *The SEC and B12 would likely both end up in the same bowl in a year where the Cotton is the semi, but for now I put each conference in the bowl game with which it has some historical ties.

      The biggest issue with this arrangement would be that two semis would occur on NYE every other year, whereas the other years would have one semi on NYE and the other on NYD. I wouldn’t be shocked if the networks ask for the games to be held on Jan. 1 and Jan. 2, rather the Dec. 31 and Jan. 1.

      Like

  48. Brian says:

    http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19616796/saban-makes-it-clear-nine-games-is-best-for-sec-but-not-everybody-agrees

    Saban explains why the SEC should go to 9 games (no 4 year player would miss any SEC team, good for the conference, SOS). Tony Barnhart explains why he thinks the SEC is headed for 9 games sooner rather than later:

    1. By 2013, the ACC, B12 and P12 will be playing 9.
    2. The B10 is reconsidering playing 9 by 2017.
    3. SOS matters in the new playoff, and that could be all of the other power conferences playing 9.

    Something he doesn’t mention is that it will help balance the schedules. LSU and UF have to want other schools to play a 9th game so AL (vs TN) and others don’t get such an obvious scheduling advantage every year.

    Like

    • Brian #2 says:

      If the SEC and Big Ten move to a nine game schedule, is that essentially the end for intriguing non-conference games? We’ve already seen a decline in recent years, but it seems like that would put the final nail in the coffin, which would be sad.

      Like

      • bullet says:

        Pac 12 tried to do the Big 10 deal. Big 12 schedules are picking up.

        I think TV and the need to fill stadiums is driving more intriguing matchups.

        Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m just gonna stick with the biggest reason for 9 games: more TV money from more conference games.

      It’s going to happen in the Big Ten and SEC sooner rather than later. I’d be shocked if we get to the end of this decade still at 8 games. Somehow it means the conferences passed up a chance to get some extra cash, and they haven’t done that lately with the moves that have gone on…

      Like

      • Eric says:

        The question is though whether the extra TV value can replace the lost .5 home game revenue that will likely disappear. That wasn’t as much a question in other conference, but the Big Ten and SEC have the biggest fanbases who can sell out bigger stadiums against even smaller opponents.

        Like

        • @Eric – This is true – the extra home game means much more to most of the SEC and Big Ten than other conferences. That being said, Michigan was one of the most vocal proponents of the 9-game conference schedule and they arguably have the most incentive to have the most home games possible out of anyone since they have the largest stadium.

          Like

          • Richard says:

            tOSU has the most incentive as they derive the most revenue from tickets of any B10 team. But you’re right–Michigan and PSU get more than the rest.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            Schools just have to balance the OOC schedule with a 9 game conference schedule. I do think the unintended consequence may be the disappearance of at least one other BCS opponent.

            In a perfect world we would have a 9 game conf schedule with at least 1 additional BCS opponent. That would leave only two games for MAC type opponents. I think if a team plays a FCS opponent they should be automatically disqualified from the 4 team playoff.

            Like

        • cutter says:

          Per the FY 2013 Michigan Athletic Department budget, UM received $43.1M in football spectator admissions for the eight home games. That’s an average of a little under $5.4M per game. See http://www.regents.umich.edu/meetings/06-12/2012-06-X-19.pdf. This figure doesn’t include PSLs or the money coming from the luxury box leases.

          Of course, that figure doesn’t include losses of additional revenue from concessions, parking, etc., but I imagine UM figures its can make up the $3M or so it would lose annually from the television revenue increases.

          If the Big Ten does this, I wonder if they’ll be able to implement it by 2017. I have to imagine some scheduling decisions were put on hold as the agreement with the Pac 12 was being worked on, so the conference members may have some flexibility there and be in the position to actually have a nine-game conference schedule five years from now.

          As far as intriguing non-conference games go, I assume the major programs in the conference will want to have a minimum of seven games per season. That means one-home-and-home series plus two buy-in games. It’s going to up to the individual schools regarding the level of opponent for that one home-and-home series.

          Michigan, Michigan State and Purdue have Notre Dame on an almost regular basis (although UM has a two year hiatus in 2018/19 and MSU plays Oregon in lieu of ND in 2014/5 not to mention a home-and-home with Alabama in 2016/7), so that covers those three teams.

          Wisconsin has Washington and Virginia Tech on its future schedules.

          Ohio State has Oklahoma in 2016/7 and North Carolina in 2017.

          Penn State has a couple of future games with Pittsburgh, but there are no real heavyweights on their future non-conference schedule (although PSU just finished a home-and-home with Alabama).

          Nebraska has non-conference games coming up with UCLA, Miami-FL, and Tennessee.

          Northwestern has a game with Notre Dame in 2014 and a six-game agreement with Stanford with the final game in 2022.

          Iowa has its annual game with Iowa State, but like PSU, their future non-conference schedules don’t look too aggressive (there is one game with Pitt in 2015).

          I suspect there are some Big Ten athletic directors waiting for some more guidance vis-a-vis the strength of schedule component for the selection of the four teams to participate in the post-season playoff before making any other decisions on future opponents as well. Becoming bowl eligible is also going to be a factor, although it appears the movement towards winning seven games minimum my be waning a bit.

          Like

  49. RayF says:

    I’ve seen comments in this blog that a nine game schedule strengthens the SOS for the 5 top conferences but it also weakens the SOS for the bottom 5 conferences. My opinion is that If the Big 10 goes to 9 games, the game they give up is to a MAC team and if the SEC goes to 9, they give up a Sunbelt or CUSA game. Those teams from bottom 5 conferences that lose games to the top 5 conferences will have to replace those games with weaker opponents, making it harder for a them to make it to the playoffs.

    Like

    • Stopping By says:

      Just waiting on DirecTV now…..so I won’t have to change my provider.

      Like

    • MrTemecula says:

      That’s a big get. 900 operators. The sats and telcos should soon follow. I’m disappointed the Pac-12/Big-10 agreement fell apart, but at least the network is going to be huge. The Pac-12 have not been shy about spending their new found money on coaches. Hopefully results will follow.

      Like

  50. Brian says:

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/07/20/miami-ncaa-investigation.ap/index.html?sct=cf_t2_a4

    The NCAA was down in Miami again. Looks like they are still months away from finding out their fate.

    Like

  51. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8184260/joe-paterno-statue-call-made-penn-state-nittany-lions-president

    PSU’s president will make the decision about Paterno’s statue over the weekend.

    What to do about the statue has been a highly emotional topic among administrators and the board of trustees, sources said Friday. Much of the discussion has centered on how the NCAA will interpret whatever decision is made about the statue, sources said.

    The trustees who spoke Friday morning said board members did discuss possibilities for the statue, including moving it from the stadium area, perhaps to the library on campus that bears the Paterno name, or the Penn State All Sports Museum near the stadium.

    In other words, they want to do the least possible yet still avoid angering the NCAA. I wish doing what was right was their top concern instead, but that’s not realistic.

    Dealing with the statue issue, and the resignation of Garban, was needed to show the public the board was serious about “moving forward,” one trustee said.

    “It’s a highly sensitive decision,” another trustee said Friday. “The decision is a symbolic one. We have to be very careful about what kind of message we send.”

    According to one trustee, board members also are concerned about how the NCAA might view the board’s decision in 2004 not to take a vote on a sweeping set of reforms that would have strengthened the board’s oversight power over the university president and other campus leaders, including Paterno.

    Like

  52. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    The Princeton Review’s Annual Party School ranking is out. The MAC’s Ohio U dethroned reigning champ Georgia for this year’s #1 spot. Five schools each from the B1G and the SEC made the list.

    SEC (5): #2 UGA, #3 Ole Miss, #9 Florida, #13 LSU & #20 South Carolina
    B1G (5): #4 Iowa, #7 Penn State, #11 Illinois, #14 Wisconsin & #16 Indiana
    Big XII (2): #6 West Virginia & #10 Texas
    ACC (2): #8 Florida State & #18 Maryland
    Big East: #12 Syracuse
    Pac-12: #17 Arizona State
    Misc (4): #1 Ohio U, #5 Cal-Santa Barbara, #15 DePauw & #19 Vermont

    Here’s a shocker. BYU is #1 on the Stone Cold Sober Schools list.

    http://www.collegeatlas.org/top-party-schools.html

    Like

  53. bamatab says:

    It looks like Delany not only wants to power to fire coaches, but he also made a proposal during this past bowl season for the commissioner to have the power to vet, and even hire coaches as well.

    “He wanted to offer that he would play a very central role in hiring and managing the power coaches in the conference—that the commissioner would be insulated from boosters and campus politics,” this person said. “And knowing the situation going on in intercollegiate athletics, he could play a really critical role in hiring decisions.”

    Here is the link to the article: http://chronicle.com/blogs/players/delany-also-wanted-power-to-hire-coaches-source-says/30799

    Like

    • rich2 says:

      CBS is reporting that the NCAA will announce its decision on the future of PSU tomorrow. Seems impossible since PSU has not replied to the November Letter of Inquiry but this is the report. -FWIW.

      http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state/?tag=stack

      Like

      • Psuhockey says:

        I think Penn State football will be the anchor tenet on the BTN for long time. Don’t expect to see them on network tv for many years.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          It’s possible, but I doubt it. That would punish ABC/ESPN more than PSU. PSU gets the same share of the TV deal as IN no matter where their games are televised.

          I’m hearing/thinking a multi-year bowl ban and maybe major scholarship losses, plus something more to hit the whole AD (large fine?).

          Like

        • metatron says:

          I’m pretty sure Penn State’s first big game is going to be must see TV. People are nothing if not morbid.

          Like

      • zeek says:

        Sounds like something along the lines of a full decade removal of victories and things like that along with bowl ban(s) and loss of scholarships probably.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Just want to add, as of now it doesn’t sound like a death penalty situation yet.

          I don’t think they’d cancel 2012 football given the havoc it would bring down on scheduling at this late time, and I’m not sure there’d be such a rush to cancel 2013 football.

          Perhaps they’ll ban Penn State from all postseason activities for a year in the NCAA? Every sport banned for a year or two from the postseason?

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
            Penn State sanctions expected to be extremely harsh and could even be perceived as more damaging long-term than “death penalty”
            Expand
            Reply Retweet Favorite
            20m Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
            Penn State facing loss of bowl/s and scholarships, but not so-called death penalty

            Like

        • Brian says:

          zeek,

          “Sounds like something along the lines of a full decade removal of victories and things like that”

          This is one of those rare times when I support vacating wins. If an underlying cause of this was a desire to preserve Paterno’s reputation and records, then moving him behind Eddie Robinson and Bobby Bowden is a fitting football punishment for Paterno’s legacy.

          Like

      • rich2 says:

        BTW, unfortunately from my perspective, leaking the “unprecedented” comment probably means that football operations will not be suspended for a year or two. “Unprecedented” means NCAA spin. And PSUhockey, I hope that the Big 10 shows the leadership that its conference members think they demonstrate and bans PSU from the BTN as well.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Well, it could be a TV ban or something like that; Schad says it’s potentially more damaging than the death penalty.

          Wetzel is saying that on-field opponents haven’t heard anything about games getting cancelled.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
            If loss of bowls and or scholarships are significant enough it will be debated if punishment is harsher than one-year suspension of program

            Joe Schad ‏@schadjoe
            Thee sanctions were not self-imposed or negotiated. This is Emmert taking a stand he felt he had to due to horrors in Freeh Report.

            He just posted these as well.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-reveal-penn-state-sanctions-monday

            Interesting discussion with college official on potential sanctions “This is an important precendent and should be taken with extreme care.”

            If they are doing it on Monday, it sounds like its being done without extreme care, unless there has been substantial hypothetical discussion going on since before the Freeh report was issued.

            Like

          • Peter says:

            The Freeh investigation was substantially more professional and extensive than what the NCAA is usually capable of, and PSU as an entity does not dispute it. There’s no reason to conduct more investigation here.

            It has also been reported that PSU will not appeal NCAA punishment.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            Interesting discussion with college official on potential sanctions “This is an important precendent and should be taken with extreme care.”

            If they are doing it on Monday, it sounds like its being done without extreme care, unless there has been substantial hypothetical discussion going on since before the Freeh report was issued.

            Don’t forget that the NCAA sat in on many of the interviews and probably also saw many of the documents as they were obtained. They probably just needed to read the report to make sure they didn’t miss anything important. Besides, I think they’re under intense pressure to do something now rather than on their usual glacial time scale.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Peter,

            “The Freeh investigation was substantially more professional and extensive than what the NCAA is usually capable of, and PSU as an entity does not dispute it. There’s no reason to conduct more investigation here.”

            Agreed. They can add on more punishment of future trials or lawsuits reveal anything else.

            “It has also been reported that PSU will not appeal NCAA punishment.”

            Even PSU isn’t tone deaf enough to appeal.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        Bryan Fischer ‏@BryanDFischer
        Using proposed NCAA penalty matrix, max sanctions PSU would be looking at: 50% of scholarships cut, fine of 5% total budget, 3+ yr bowl ban

        Like

        • Husker Al says:

          Judging from the lack of a typical NCAA infractions process, I suspect that penalty matrix doesn’t apply in this case.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      bamatab,

      It looks like Delany not only wants to power to fire coaches, but he also made a proposal during this past bowl season for the commissioner to have the power to vet, and even hire coaches as well.

      “He wanted to offer that he would play a very central role in hiring and managing the power coaches in the conference—that the commissioner would be insulated from boosters and campus politics,” this person said. “And knowing the situation going on in intercollegiate athletics, he could play a really critical role in hiring decisions.”

      I read the article, and I could see how he could be helpful. Maybe IN wouldn’t have hired Sampson if he chimed in. I don’t think he wanted carte blanche to pick all coaches. If he could have saved MN from Brewster or MI from RichRod that’s a bonus, but unlikely.

      Like

  54. Husker Al says:

    Is there any point at which Penn State’s membership in the Big Ten becomes in jeopardy?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      IMO, that only gets considered if there’s a multi-year death penalty or TV ban put in place…

      Like

      • Ross says:

        I think the NCAA is making a big mistake here. There is no reason the NCAA and the B1G should jump in front of the judicial process on assessing penalties/damages. While Sandusky has been found guilty, it is only the beginning of the court process. Both institutions should wait until the entirety of the evidence and judgment has concluded. If the NCAA assesses these penalties and part of the Freeh report turns out to have been inaccurate (I do believe most of the report, however, it does simply read like someone giving their opinion on the evidence we all already know – there is more out there that could potentially suggest something else), then they will be in some trouble.

        Like

        • Peter says:

          The PSU Board of Trustees adopted the Freeh report. They don’t dispute the findings.

          Like

          • Ross says:

            That doesn’t mean it contained every shred of evidence. The authors of the report said as much when they explained that they were specifically asked not to speak to key witnesses and they lacked subpoena power. I don’t expect the final conclusions of the courts to substantially differ from the Freeh Report’s findings; however, the potential exists for there to be discrepancies. As long as that potential exists, I would think the NCAA is making a mistake to assess penalties. They could be wrong, perhaps even completely off-base.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Ross,

          “I think the NCAA is making a big mistake here. There is no reason the NCAA and the B1G should jump in front of the judicial process on assessing penalties/damages.”

          I think there are several reasons to do this now:
          1. There is intense public pressure on them to do something. People hate that the courts take forever, but they understand it’s necessary. The NCAA doesn’t get the same level of understanding from people.
          2. Penalties should be applied ASAP after a violation. The NCAA has been trying to speed up their investigation and punishment times anyway.
          3. The sooner they do this, the sooner recruits and future students can evaluate their plans.
          4. The sooner they do this, the sooner other schools can adjust their scheduling (to drop or add PSU).
          5. The sooner they do this, the sooner the B10 can make any necessary changes (TV schedule changes, etc).
          6. The sooner they do this, the sooner TV networks can make any necessary changes.
          7. The sooner they do this, the sooner PSU can make necessary changes.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            LOIC I thought was a repeated failure to have, or follow procedures regulating athletics. Which of those rules has PSU repeatedly violated? Don’t get me wrong, there needs to be harsh judgement. But it should be judgement of criminal activity of those involved, in criminal court. It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind meeting out athletic penalties for non-athlete related individual criminal actions.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “LOIC I thought was a repeated failure to have, or follow procedures regulating athletics. Which of those rules has PSU repeatedly violated?”

            For the COI, yes. This is more like Goodell punishing the Saints.

            “Don’t get me wrong, there needs to be harsh judgement. But it should be judgement of criminal activity of those involved, in criminal court. It will be interesting to hear the reasoning behind meeting out athletic penalties for non-athlete related individual criminal actions.”

            I’m not a huge fan of NCAA penalties here, but I think they can easily justify anything but the death penalty. If they are going to do something, it’s better to do it now than later in my opinion. The courts will still have their say, but that’s a different standard of proof and PSU isn’t on trial.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            “and PSU isn’t on trial.”
            Their reputation, through their leaders, certainly would be. Again, what athletic rules and regs are the athletic teams and/or department in violation of? I’m concerned the nature of the crime is driving this bus. Substitute covering up multiple uninsured accidents, or DUI’s and does the NCAA jump in at all, let alone with a big hammer?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The sooner they do this, the EASIER it is on PSU. Uncertainty is one of the biggest penalties out there. If PSU isn’t going to appeal, that could be part of the thinking.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Bullet:

            You are probably correct. And it being an already agreed to punishment is the only thing that makes sense. However, does it set president? Marburg v Madison anyone?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Darn auto correct…precedent?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “and PSU isn’t on trial.”

            Their reputation, through their leaders, certainly would be.

            No, I mean literally on trial. Sandusky was tried, and 2-3 more will be, but PSU as an entity can’t be tried criminally. That’s where the criminal court argument loses some steam. Now, the civil courts will have a field day with PSU and cost them probably around $100M as a guess and I can see calling that a sufficient punishment.

            Again, what athletic rules and regs are the athletic teams and/or department in violation of?

            LOIC, unethical conduct, etc. And being a voluntary organization, they can do almost anything they want. Assuming the bylaws give the board the right to give the president special dispensation to punish PSU, then the NCAA isn’t overstepping. In some ways, this is more fitting than going through the COI as usual. I think we can all agree these are unprecedented problems. It’s probably best dealt with in an unprecedented way.

            I’m concerned the nature of the crime is driving this bus. Substitute covering up multiple uninsured accidents, or DUI’s and does the NCAA jump in at all, let alone with a big hammer?

            First, how would they cover up those kinds of things. Second, why would they bother? They don’t carry nearly the stigma of child molestation.

            I think the NCAA is saying that if you get so far off track as to be beyond on our normal rules and punishments, we’ll expand out nebulous clauses about ethics and such to punish you appropriately anyway.

            I still don’t think the NCAA should be punishing them, at least not right now, but I accept that the public sentiment is so strong that they have to do it.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55.

            The NCAA is explicitly not bound by precedent. The COI has always said that. The NCAA isn’t a court of law.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “but I accept that the public sentiment is so strong that they have to do it.”

            I guess this was the attitude in Mass colony 1692.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Are you suggesting that PSU the institution , minus Sandusky et al would/could be tried and convicted? Criminal activity may happen within an organization, but not in the absence of actors.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            No, I’m saying because PSU can’t be tried, saying only the courts should get involved could be seen as falling short. The NCAA can punish PSU while criminal courts can’t.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I dismiss his concerns, too, because they are misplaced. The 20ish member executive board had to vote to give Emmert this power. That’s representative democracy. There’s no reason to assume they’ll regularly vote to give the president this power.

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            So the cabal is 20, not 5 or 6. I feel much better…

            Like

          • Brian says:

            If it goes to the COI it’s a group of 5-6 deciding their fate. That’s better because it’s been done before?

            Like

    • Peter says:

      I don’t think Penn State can be unwound from the B1G with the grant of rights and the BTN.

      That said, a number of schools were reportedly extremely angry at the first B1G meetings after the scandal broke, and if you saw an extended ban of anything that would defeat the point of having a 12th member (i.e. multi-year post-season ban if the NCAA didn’t provide a championship game waiver), that might get revisited.

      Like

      • Nostradamus says:

        The grant of rights is trivial. It is pretty much a one way street. Presumably all the Big Ten would need to do there is release Penn State from said grant. The Big Ten Network could be a complicating factor depending on how it is actually structured and how the contracts are provisioned.

        Like

        • Eric says:

          Since Nebraska is buying into the BTN, I suspect each school will technically own 1/12 of the network. Even if it’s not technically quite like that, Penn State would likely have to be reimbursed that share.

          that said, they aren’t being kicked out regardless imo. I doubt it’s even a one in a million chance.

          Like

          • zeek says:

            Taking the death penalty off the table pretty much takes Penn State being out of the Big Ten off the table.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        Peter,

        “That said, a number of schools were reportedly extremely angry at the first B1G meetings after the scandal broke, and if you saw an extended ban of anything that would defeat the point of having a 12th member (i.e. multi-year post-season ban if the NCAA didn’t provide a championship game waiver), that might get revisited.”

        PSU having an extended postseason ban wouldn’t impact much of anything but PSU. PSU would be like OSU this year, ineligible to represent their division in the CCG or to go to a bowl. The biggest impact on the B10 would be 1 less team bowl eligible most years, and thus a slightly smaller bowl payout. It would give the rest of the division a better chance to win a title (mostly helps OSU and WI).

        Like

    • Brian says:

      Husker Al,

      “Is there any point at which Penn State’s membership in the Big Ten becomes in jeopardy?”

      Only if they get kicked out of the NCAA.

      Like

  55. Guido says:

    Any announcement by NCAA would likely come as a result of agreement with Penn St officials on a resolution. This would come quickly because Penn St is not likely to fight anything at this point.

    I’m struggling to see the point, or rationale for putting sanctions on the program related to punishing the current student athletes. This case had nothing to do with student athlete behavior. This is a situation where controls and oversight from outside Athletics need to be put into place to reign in the culture of Football/Athletics being bigger than the University. It seems to me it’s the school restructuring itself and bringing “watchdogs” into athletics oversight, while the NCAA perhaps puts the University on probationary notice that any further instances of an “unchecked” Athletic Department behaving badly may result in future heavy sanctions or removal altogether.

    Speaking of Death Penalty, I don’t think any major program will ever get it again. If Miami doesn’t, we can probably remove that sanction from future possibilities anywhere. I’m fairly sure the Miami situation was the hypothetical example in mind when the sanction was first created!

    Like

    • Peter says:

      What Penn State is going to get may become known as the new death penalty. It sounds like a major institutional crackdown, which is what the “shutdown” death penalty was supposed to be, but is too impractical to administer in the modern world. Miami will also probably get a variant of whatever PSU is getting.

      And punishment is coming for PSU because of the systematic institutional corruption. The only reason NCAA by-laws don’t address this is that it was inconceivable that an athletic program would effectively order the athletic department and the university president to cover up/enable serious felony offenses.

      I think the NCAA lawyers can be forgiven for not thinking to include that explicitly in the definition of LOIC.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Guido,

      “I’m struggling to see the point, or rationale for putting sanctions on the program related to punishing the current student athletes. This case had nothing to do with student athlete behavior.”

      I’ve seen this argument many times and I’ll just respond this time.

      NCAA penalties always punish the current athletes that did nothing wrong. The only things they can do to prior offenders are vacate wins and strip records. The point is to punish the school, and any offenders that are still around. The current players are innocent victims, but for two things:
      1. They can transfer with no penalty if a bowl ban will last through their senior year.
      2. It’s a team game. You win and lose as a team, and you get punished as a team. The same is true for penalties in a game.

      Like

      • Guido says:

        I think the standard punish today’s athlete for yesterdays athletes misdeeds (taking extra benefits) is not a perfect system, but at least it’s related in part to the Athletes involvement in whatever rule was broken. I see this very differently, as I have not seen any connection made to Student Athletes involvement in this case.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          They play at PSU. That’s their involvement. All of OSU’s players are missing a bowl because Tressel lied and covered up violations he knew about (the player infractions wouldn’t have brought a bowl ban). Players suffer when coaches break recruiting rules (IN hoops, for example). That’s always been the way it works.

          Like

    • bullet says:

      UNC is pretty bad also since it involves academic fraud.

      The rush is a bit of a problem since this only peripherally involved football and had nothing to do with the current athletes. If it was applied in 2013, current players could transfer. They’re all pretty much stuck for this year.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        “UNC is pretty bad also since it involves academic fraud.”

        And yet the NCAA didn’t hammer them as much as you might expect for the academics fraud. I think it’s because they couldn’t prove the fake classes were designed to help athletes.

        “The rush is a bit of a problem since this only peripherally involved football and had nothing to do with the current athletes.”

        I think that’s exactly why it can be rushed. Besides, the Freeh report was a t least as thorough as anything the NCAA could do. The usual procedure would be to tell PSU what violations were found and give them 90 days to respond, but I’m not sure how that delay helps anyone.

        “If it was applied in 2013, current players could transfer. They’re all pretty much stuck for this year.”

        We don’t know that any penalty will impact this year’s team directly. At worst they lose out on a bowl this year. They still have time to transfer if someone will take them.

        Like

  56. zeek says:

    http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf–sources–ncaa-president-to-hit-penn-state-with–staggering–penalties-from-sandusky-scandal.html

    Yahoo’s latest report: ‘One source told Yahoo! Sports Emmert’s sanctions will include a “multiple-year” bowl ban and “crippling” scholarship losses. Penn State will not receive the “death penalty.”‘

    My guess: 3 year bowl ban, 60 scholarships lost over a 4 year time frame.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Basically, prepare for Penn State football to play at a mediocre level for at least 10 years. If the bowl ban and scholarship losses are that severe, it will take a long time for them to recover.

      Also, no word on whether they will lose past victories. It wouldn’t surprise me if an entire decade’s worth of records is wiped out…

      Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        “Basically, prepare for Penn State football to play at a mediocre level for at least 10 years. If the bowl ban and scholarship losses are that severe, it will take a long time for them to recover.”

        I think they’ll recover fairly quickly. The question is how they count the penalties. Take your suggested penalties (-15 scholarships). Does that mean 70 total for 4 years or 10 recruits for 4 years or both? If both, PSU will suck the most so I went with that:

        2012 – 85 (24//29//18/5//20/1 = Sr//Jr//RSo/So//RFr/Fr)
        2013 – 64 (-24 Srs -11 others to attrition = 50 + 14 recruits since 4 can backcount)
        2014 – 47 (-20 Srs -7 = 37 + 10)
        2015 – 36 (-17 Srs -4 = 26 + 10)
        2016 – 29 (-15 Srs -2 = 19 + 10)
        2017 – 44 (-9 Srs -1 = 19 + 25)
        2018 – 58 (-9 Srs -2 = 33 + 25)
        2019 – 70 (-9 Srs -4 = 45 + 25)
        2020 – 79 (-9 Srs -7 = 54 + 25)
        2021 – 85

        They’d be weakened but still solid in 2013, 2019-2020. They’d struggle in 2014-2018. That’s a sizable penalty, but my point is they are back to competitive in the third year after the penalty ends so they recover fairly quickly.

        “Also, no word on whether they will lose past victories. It wouldn’t surprise me if an entire decade’s worth of records is wiped out…”

        I could see dropping every win since 2001. That would be 88 wins, dropping Paterno to 321 (Robinson 408, Bowden 377, Stagg 328, Bryant 323, Warner 318).

        Like

  57. frug says:

    http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/07/22/sanctions-looming-death-penalty-may-have-been-preferable-for-psu/#comment-95720

    Couple of points;

    [t]he penalties… are considered to be so harsh that the death penalty may have been preferable

    and

    the NCAA is taking the unprecedented step of bypassing its own Committee on Infractions in handling the Penn State situation. Schad notes that “the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and/or the NCAA Executive Committee has granted Emmert the authority to punish through non-traditional methods.”

    The fact they are bypassing the COI is a pretty huge issue. I can’t possibly imagine Penn St. actually incurring the PR hit that would come from mounting a legal challenge, but wonder if that would give them grounds for a lawsuit.

    Like

    • Ross says:

      I really think this is dangerous for the NCAA, as I said above. They are jumping the gun, without the courts having finished their jobs. In addition, skipping the COI step seems like a surefire way for there to be disputes, if the courts’ findings do differ from the Free Report. I just don’t think the NCAA should really be getting involved at all at this point, let alone letting one person dictate the penalties.

      Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m not sure how the penalties are “worse” than the death penalty if the reports are accurate.

      Death penalty kills the budget of the department for a year, screws up scheduling, big loss of $ for community, huge hit to the conference as well (lost games, lost $, etc.).

      This just seems like a stronger version of the USC penalty (they got 30 scholarships over 3 years and 2 year bowl ban). They’d need to do something else for this to be worse than the death penalty.

      Like

      • Peter says:

        The length of these punishments matters a great deal. If they’re simultaneous (unlike appealing USC) and long (say a 4-year bowl ban), it might as well be a multi-year death penalty. You can theoretically compete, but in practice you’ll be as hapless as post-DP SMU. The long term damage done to the school’s institutional memory and reputation would be tremendous. No quality prospects are going to sign up for several years of butt-kicking on a scholarship-depleted, post-season-banned school.

        At that point, PSU would wish it had a TV ban because TV will be the B1G opponents trucking the equivalent of third-string and walk-ons by scores of 45-3.

        Like

    • Brian says:

      It’s a shame it took this long to decide it needed to come down. All the articles about it show the PSU fans still don’t get it. They are so busy defending the good Joe did that they fail to acknowledge all the bad he did. Keeping that statue up is akin to southerners flying the stars and bars. It may represent good things about the past to you, but to a large minority that suffered terribly and their families it’s a constant reminder of the abuses they faced and to everyone else it’s a statement about your lack of empathy.

      Like

      • Eric says:

        While not southern, I don’t have a problem with the Star and Bars (American flag will be bad to someone too). I think I grudgingly accept this though. The historian in me hates to see the all time winningest coach (which he’ll be that to me regardless of what happens with the official record) and someone who built up the program ignored, but with the current circumstances I agree its for the best.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Eric,

          “While not southern, I don’t have a problem with the Star and Bars (American flag will be bad to someone too).”

          I don’t directly, either, but then I’m not descended from slaves or from a Civil War casualty. However, I understand how it is offensive to many millions of people and would never fly it or support those who do. Having one amidst a collection of Civil War paraphernalia is different because it provides context. Slapping it on your pickup is a bush league redneck move designed to support the white power movement indirectly.

          “The historian in me hates to see the all time winningest coach (which he’ll be that to me regardless of what happens with the official record) and someone who built up the program ignored, but with the current circumstances I agree its for the best.”

          How is not having a statue on campus being ignored? His name is staying on the library, they may move the statue to another site, he’s still in the record books, I’m guessing his name is inside the stadium somewhere, etc.

          And yes, he’ll be the all time winningest coach to people who watched him coach but always with that mental asterisk. More importantly, though, PSU can’t officially trumpet his achievement which is why the NCAA should do this. They also need to officially label this as a major violation so PSU can’t claim a clean record.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            “They also need to officially label this as a major violation so PSU can’t claim a clean record.”

            Only if it is a violation of an existing NCAA rule.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            They can throw 10.2 or 2.4 (I think those were the ones) at them.

            Like

    • StevenD says:

      If Penn State football is going to be emasculated for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the B1G should reconsider its divisions. The only reason the Leader-Legend divisions were chosen was to spread the Kings (Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska) evenly between the two divisions. However, if PSU is going to lose its King status (even for just a decade or two), then the current division s are very unbalanced, with just one King in the Leaders — OSU (which is affected by sanctions of it’s own).

      This year we will see Wisconsin cakewalk to the CCG while in the other division Nebraska, Michigan and MSU will battle fiercely for the other spot. Competitive balance? I don’t think so.

      We would be much better off with geographical divisions (i.e. Frank’s KISS divisions). With those divisions Nebraska would balance Wisconsin in the west while Michigan would balance MSU in the east. Then, in future years, Michigan would fight OSU for the east division with some competition from MSU; while in the west, Nebraska, Wisconsin and (occasionally) Iowa would compete.

      Like

      • schwarm says:

        You could also put MSU in the west for more balance. As a Nebraska fan, I always preferred a geographic split.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        StevenD,

        “If Penn State football is going to be emasculated for the foreseeable future, then perhaps the B1G should reconsider its divisions.”

        When will people give up on this? There will be no change to their make up or their names as long as Delany is around unless the B10 adds or loses a school.

        “The only reason the Leader-Legend divisions were chosen was to spread the Kings (Michigan, OSU, PSU, Nebraska) evenly between the two divisions. However, if PSU is going to lose its King status (even for just a decade or two), then the current division s are very unbalanced, with just one King in the Leaders — OSU (which is affected by sanctions of it’s own).”

        How would a change impact that? The East has 2 kings and the top prince. PSU dropping will only help WI and others rise. The West has 2 kings and the other prince. No change will make it more balanced.

        “This year we will see Wisconsin cakewalk to the CCG while in the other division Nebraska, Michigan and MSU will battle fiercely for the other spot. Competitive balance? I don’t think so.”

        Many experts predict OSU to have an equal or better record than WI. That’s a cakewalk in name only, and it’s only for one year. That also ignores what anyone else might do. Meanwhile, you’re assuming MI, MSU and NE will all battle for the title. Odds are that 1 of the 3 will fall back or else all 3 aren’t that great. Why not wait until there’s an actual problem before trying to force a solution?

        Like

        • zeek says:

          I agree, if anything Wisconsin is the best replacement for Penn State as a power if it comes down to that.

          Ohio State and Wisconsin can easily carry that division for a decade if they have to; particularly given the expectations for the Meyer era and Wisconsin’s recent performance.

          Like

      • Richard says:

        However, in the B10, Wisconsin is the Prince with the most financial resources (as much as most Kings) and Nebraska is the King with the least (both financially and in terms of recruiting grounds).

        In 2 decades, we could very well see the roles of Wisconsin and Nebraska reversed. Plus, even if PSU falls from King status, how could you balance the divisions better by moving teams around? You’d have 3 Kings and 3 Princes (PSU won’t fall below that).

        Like

      • Eric says:

        The odds are probably pretty close to zero, but I hope we get new divisions out of this.

        Like

  58. Brian says:

    Tomorrow will be fascinating for all the wrong reasons. I think the impact on recruiting will be interesting. PSU had a decommit already, but supposedly it wasn’t all about Sandusky (he switched to UNC). Now their elite QB recruit may be wavering.

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53613/top-psu-recruit-in-holding-pattern

    If major long term penalties are coming, I’d expect many/most of the recruits to bail to equivalent schools that offered them.

    Like

    • Eric says:

      I don’t like this at all. I can accept Penn State getting sued to the moon and top executives going to jail if that is what the courts find, but this is not primarily an issue of competitive play and not something were tradition/rules dictate a major penalty should occur. Even we accept it is NCAA related, from an NCAA perspective (rather than a legal one), how is this a bigger issue than USC? As as competitive play goes, benefits to players/recruits is far bigger a factor than covering up for a former coach.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        From the NCAA’s perspective, football trumping the responsibilities of the AD, VP and President is much worse than what happened at USC where they mostly blamed one assistant coach in FB and the hoops coach.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          No. Gaining a competitive advantage through aquesence or neglence of higher administrators, or violation of existing rules, is what the NCAA has always been concerned about. Until this current case, that is.

          I wonder if had PSU a violation or two in their past, would they have been more likely to have faced this situation differently more than a decade ago. Perhaps the desire to maintain the “image” of perfection, doing it the right way, led to not doing it right. Now we may be rushing to punishment with the same concern for “image”.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            No, actually academic fraud and amateurism have always been their biggest issues, then everything else. Part of amateurism is the moral and ethical standards they expect. It’s part of their constitution.

            And yes, I think PSU would have responded slightly differently if they didn’t hold themselves up on a pedestal as the rare clean FB king.

            Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        If it helps, remember the NCAA was born to keep the Feds from regulating the sport over a century ago because of the number of on-field fatalities. It only got into regulating the other stuff to justify it’s continued existence. Probably the biggest regulations are designed to keep the sports “amateur” to keep schools overhead down.

        The NCAA, at heart, is primarily and industry standard board.

        Like

  59. Brian says:

    One of the sad things about PSU ‘s response to this scandal has been how many have to be dragged kicking and screaming into doing anything. I understand the Paterno family protecting Joe, although their methods have been lacking. Too many fans don’t understand any self-punishment, and way too many trustees and administrators seem to agree.

    It shouldn’t take 10 days to decide the statue had to come down, and no trustees should be against it. Even with doing it, many only seemed to support the action as a way to placate the NCAA. And then they seemed shocked that the NCAA is planning to punish them severely.

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/ncaa-levy-unprecedented-sanctions-penn-state-nittany-lions

    “Unbelievable,” said a Penn State trustee informed of the NCAA statement, speaking to ESPN.com senior writer Don Van Natta Jr. “Unbelievable, unbelievable.” …

    “Emmert has been given full reign by the pansy presidents (at other universities) to make his own decision,” said the trustee, who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He has been given the authority to impose these unprecedented sanctions. It’s horrible.”

    By the way, these are the schools that have gotten 3+ year bowl bans since 1960:
    Indiana, 1960, 4 years
    Oklahoma St., 1989, 3 years
    Michigan St., 1976, 3 years
    Houston, 1966, 3 years

    Like

    • Brian says:

      The NCAA gave out a lot of long bowl bans in the 50s and 60s, probably because there were so few bowls that schools didn’t make one every year like they do now. A long bowl ban now is a harsher penalty financially, but missing one in the old days was probably worse emotionally.

      Like

    • ccrider55 says:

      A former chair of infractions committee is also surprised: “But this has nothing to do with NCAA business,” the former chair said. “This is new. If they’re going to deal with situations of this kind that have nothing to do with the games of who plays and so on and rather deal with members of the athletic department who act immorally or criminally then it opens up the door to other cases.”

      Like

      • bullet says:

        It really does raise the question of where to draw the line. As noted above, you had the death of the student filming at Notre Dame due to reckless disregard of safety, the death of the band student at FAMU in an activity tacitly encouraged by the band director that was ignored by the administration just as PSU ignored Sandusky’s activities (very similar pattern except that the crime was committed by students and encouraged) and you had the death of 12 students at Texas A&M in another reckless disregard of safety where the administration had warnings and the culture led to them ignoring that. Do they get into the alleged sexual assult cases at Notre Dame where the police department was alleged to have been repeatedly uninterested in the victims?

        I’m skeptical that the NCAA is doing this in a logical fashion, but is doing it because its the trend at the moment to deal with this issue. They don’t want to be criticized for being insensitve to the victims.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          Agreed with the last part.

          As a hypothetical, what would happen if Penn State challenged the ruling? This whole rollout of Emmert’s punishment doesn’t really seem to be going by the books in terms of process, and I’m just interested in whether it would really stand up in a court of law.

          Of course, Penn State isn’t likely to challenge anything, and instead just accept the punishments and deal with playing horrible football for 5-6 years, so there’s that, but I’m more interested in whether this is a one time deal or whether we start seeing these “on the fly” punishments meted out in the future.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            “As a hypothetical, what would happen if Penn State challenged the ruling?”

            I suppose they can appeal to the NCAA’s executive committee, but they’re the ones who gave Emmert this power.

            “This whole rollout of Emmert’s punishment doesn’t really seem to be going by the books in terms of process, and I’m just interested in whether it would really stand up in a court of law.”

            It’s not the standard procedure, but the books allow for other methods. They never do it, but they can always skip the COI and wait for the annual convention to punish schools. I’m guessing the NCAA rules do give the committee the right to give this sort of power to Emmert. Besides, as a private organization with voluntary members, a court doesn’t have much power over the NCAA. At most they can make PSU stay a member until the annual convention when the NCAA can do anything they want with a supermajority vote. PSU doesn’t have a right to be in the NCAA, and when they joined they agreed to follow the rules.

            “Of course, Penn State isn’t likely to challenge anything, and instead just accept the punishments and deal with playing horrible football for 5-6 years, so there’s that, but I’m more interested in whether this is a one time deal or whether we start seeing these “on the fly” punishments meted out in the future.”

            I’m guessing PSU will shut up and take it because fighting will only make things worse. I also think this will be a rare occurrence but the NCAA will reserve the right to do it again if a scandal is big enough and largely outside of the standard rules.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          bullet,

          “It really does raise the question of where to draw the line.”

          Sort of, but not really. This is an institutional-level problem of actively covering up something and putting football before the school while not committing a bunch of specific NCAA violations. It also was large and prolonged. That’s a unique situation.

          “As noted above, you had the death of the student filming at Notre Dame due to reckless disregard of safety, the death of the band student at FAMU in an activity tacitly encouraged by the band director that was ignored by the administration just as PSU ignored Sandusky’s activities (very similar pattern except that the crime was committed by students and encouraged) and you had the death of 12 students at Texas A&M in another reckless disregard of safety where the administration had warnings and the culture led to them ignoring that. Do they get into the alleged sexual assult cases at Notre Dame where the police department was alleged to have been repeatedly uninterested in the victims?”

          Negligence won’t get the PSU treatment, nor will the hazing at FAMU nor the assault cases as ND. You need something unique to the case to elevate it to this special treatment. If they had proof that ND hid knowledge of assaults from the cops, that might be different.

          “I’m skeptical that the NCAA is doing this in a logical fashion,”

          The NCAA and logic rarely meet.

          “but is doing it because its the trend at the moment to deal with this issue. They don’t want to be criticized for being insensitve to the victims.”

          That’s a big part of it. I also think the presidents have gotten sick of all the scandals over the past couple of years and are drawing a line. They’ve been trying to reform the system under Emmert and the PSU scandal gave them a push and an excuse to step up punishment.

          Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            Brian:

            How long has this step up the punishment move been going on? Was there legislation passed that instituted it? Since Cam Newton when they shifted from the long standing “the parent is the child” philosophy to “as long as the kid didn’t know”? The UNC academics? Boise St? Miami? This seems the only example that is not following what passes for normal NCAA enforcement.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            ccrider55,

            “How long has this step up the punishment move been going on? Was there legislation passed that instituted it?”

            A couple of years, give or take.

            Yes. They officially revamped the punishment system and created that new matrix.

            “Since Cam Newton when they shifted from the long standing “the parent is the child” philosophy to “as long as the kid didn’t know”?”

            They changed the rule after that to include family members.

            “The UNC academics? Boise St? Miami? This seems the only example that is not following what passes for normal NCAA enforcement.”

            USC got hammered more than past precedent would suggest OSU got an unprecedented bowl ban based on what they were charged with. Miami isn’t done. Boise got hit hard but it’s being appealed.

            What you seem to fail to want to understand is that the NCAA is allowed to follow different procedures. The COI process is the default method, but not the only one. They can also punish at the national convention but choose not to do that generally. Per the Yahoo article I linked above, Emmert will cite a special provision that allows him to do this if the executive committee gives him the OK. Just because the NCAA hasn’t done it before doesn’t make it outside the rules.

            Like

        • FLP_NDRox says:

          Why mention ND twice in that litany there, I wonder? Every campus has sexual assaults. I had a friend who knew when she was at Michigan State about players that were only allowed to be on campus when they had class because they had sexually assaulted students.

          For that matter, how many PDs follow-up in sexual assaults without provable penetration? How many cases are dropped nationwide against no-name suspects because no physical evidence can be recovered, and the rape kit is too late?

          Sex crimes generally are a whole other topic. Sorry to let my own feelings get out there.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            The one attorney alleged that there was a pattern of sexual assults by Notre Dame football players being ignored by the campus police at Notre Dame (including herself). If this was proven it was basically the same thing as Penn St. and happened over an extended period (she was claiming cases back to 2003). The DOE looked at the last case where the young lady committed suicide, but there’s no indication the NCAA looked at this at all.

            I mentioned cases where someone died. People talk about how much worse PSU was than SMU, Miami, etc. But if someone dies, that’s even worse. At FAMU, Texas A&M and the two Notre Dame cases people died. In the Baylor case someone died as well, although the NCAA did act on that one. So if you are going to argue the severity of the case forces the NCAA to act even though it was only peripherally involved with sports, shouldn’t the NCAA get involved in cases where people die?

            I don’t think the NCAA should have gotten significantly involved with PSU. I think they were right not to get involved with Texas A&M, with FAMU and with the scissor lift issue. I do have a problem with the assult case because the campus police appeared to be protecting the football player (they deferred to the athletic department on when to interview him) and there was an alleged pattern. I don’t think its ok just because every campus has sexual assults.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        ccrider55,

        A former chair of infractions committee is also surprised: “But this has nothing to do with NCAA business,” the former chair said. “This is new. If they’re going to deal with situations of this kind that have nothing to do with the games of who plays and so on and rather deal with members of the athletic department who act immorally or criminally then it opens up the door to other cases.”

        That reads more like him not thinking the NCAA should be involved and perhaps being surprised that they were involved, not that the penalties would be substantial if the NCAA got involved. PSU seemed shocked to hear that the NCAA penalties would be severe.

        Like

        • ccrider55 says:

          I agree, with the caviot that any punishment imposed by an organization that he doesn’t think has authority would be improper. He doesn’t have a problem with the court system handling things they are structured to, but he does with the NCAA handling things they were not.

          Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        The NCAA is a craven, cowardly, criminial organization.

        IU self-reports basketball violations and gets hammered by the NCAA. Kentucky cheats out the wazoo and wins the NC.

        Auburn buys the NC. NCAA does nothing. NCAA jumps on PSU without legal authority…..they know PSU can only sit by and take it.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Bitter much?

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            Seriously. I hate Kentucky and Calipari. And the Auburn thing was a fiasco. But what the NCAA is doing to Penn State is actually–for once–hitting the program that deserves to get hit. Ordinarily, Penn State would get let off easy and some kid from Eastern Illinois would get a 12-game suspension for wearing a headband with Adidas on it or something.

            Like

  60. frug says:

    CBS Evening News just reported that PSU sanctions will include

    – Scholarship losses
    – Multi year postseason ban
    – Fines
    – Probation

    A source tells their website,

    “I’ve never seen anything like it,”

    http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162-57477382/ncaa-source-unprecedented-penalties-against-penn-state/

    Like

    • Brian says:

      frug,

      None of that is surprising or unprecedented, really. I’m guessing the magnitude of the penalties may be unprecedented, though. As a pure guess, I’m guessing 5 years for the penalties. Probation, no bowls and maybe down 10 scholarships per season for 50 total (I ran the numbers for a 15 ‘ship loss in another comment and that seemed a little to extreme to me). It’s harder to gauge the fine, but I’m thinking it’s on par with PSU’s share of the bowl pool and NCAA tournament distribution for 5 years.

      Like

    • bullet says:

      Fines?
      That sounds like the NCAA just trying to get their piece of the pie. They haven’t been out any great amount in the investigation. The NCAA getting a dime beyond costs bugs me. Let the victims get their money. There’s no reason for the NCAA to.

      Like

      • frug says:

        They might require the fines to be paid to charity. That’s what the NFL does.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        bullet,

        Fines are regularly a part of NCAA penalties. OSU was fined, for example. So was GT. That’s just off the top of my head.

        I believe they give the money to charity, and I know that’s what they do when an athlete has to pay back the value of an impermissible benefit.

        Why do you hate charity?

        Like

    • frug says:

      http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/blog/eye-on-college-football/19632027/ncaa-could-fine-penn-state-as-much-as-60-million-as-part-of-sandusky-sanctions

      The NCAA will fine Penn State at least $30 million and perhaps as much as $60 million for its involvement in the Jerry Sandusky scandal, industry sources told CBSSports.com’s Brett McMurphy.

      The record fine will go toward an endowment for children’s causes, sources said.

      Between $30 million and $60 million. Wow.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        frug,

        If their other punishments are spread over 5 years, that’s $6-12M per year which is high but reasonable. I guessed it might be about the same as their annual bowl share plus NCAA payout and that was about $6M last year I think.

        Like

      • acaffrey says:

        Wow… Penn State fans are pulling out the “these punishments are not fair because the perpetrators are not going to be the ones punished” card. Really? Think Lane Kiffin and the current USC is pleased with paying for the sins of Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush? Just pathetic. It’s how ALL of these NCAA sanctions seem to work.

        I don’t think the death penalty is appropriate, but the need to punish Penn State is clear to me.

        First, the University showed that it would allow the interests of the athletic department to trump overall University standards. There is no way that Paterno should have been the least bit involved in the Sandusky issue. Once it was reported to the University leadership, Paterno and the A.D. should have been out of it. Instead, the University showed that the athletic department and University leadership were commingled. This is WORSE than giving a player free sneakers.

        Second, Penn State has embarrassed the NCAA and its constituents in a way that no other University has. Wow… Ohio State players got some free tats. Miami did what Miami always seems to do. What happened at Penn State was news that leaked well beyond the sports pages. And it was negative. Fire away, NCAA.

        Again, the death penalty was too strong and I am glad it is off the table. I also think that the idea of unprecedented penalties is crap–everything being reported has been done before. Penn State just looks to get slapped harder than in recent years. $$$ is replaceable.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          I believe the AD was involved because Sandusky was using athletic facilities and was a professor emeritus and essentially was responsible for him. Its not clear how much Paterno was involved, but I agree, he should not have been. Of course, people were slamming him for not reporting it to the police himself and not getting more involved.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I mean… the University should have decided what to do without any regard for whether it was O.K. with Paterno or the A.D. The overwhelming sense of everything is that people were stepping gingerly around the football program, rather than allowing the process to properly play out with the University and external discipline. That is a backwards system and exactly what should not happen with a compliant program.

            Like

  61. Great Lake State says:

    A number of lawyers commenting on the matter don’t think the NCAA got their ducks in a row before handing down this unprecedented (and perhaps unlawful) punishment. The fact that the NCAA is changing the rules as they go along could prove problematic if this ruling is challenged in a court of law. I don’t know what the right punishment is, but this ruling does appear to be a reactionary response based largely on the Freeh report. As long as the five administrators (and Sandusky) are punished, Paterno’s name is banished and the victims receive whatever compensation they are seeking, justice (if there can be justice in a case this horrific) will be done.

    Like

    • frug says:

      Doesn’t matter. There is no way PSU is going to risk the PR backlash of actually appealing whatever the NCAA does.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Great Lake State,

      “A number of lawyers commenting on the matter don’t think the NCAA got their ducks in a row before handing down this unprecedented (and perhaps unlawful) punishment. The fact that the NCAA is changing the rules as they go along could prove problematic if this ruling is challenged in a court of law.”

      How would they know? Do they know what meetings the NCAA held to decide to go this route? Have they checked the rules and made sure the BoD isn’t allowed to give Emmert this power? Just because they haven’t done it before doesn’t mean they aren’t allowed to do it. The rules clearly allow for punishment at the national convention or via the COI. If PSU fights this it will just go to the national convention to get the same penalties, and the other members will be mad that PSU fought it.

      Like

    • bamatab says:

      I’m guessing that in the NCAA’s eyes, the coverup that took placed for over a decade is what is drawing their “wrath”. I’m guessing that in the NCAA’s eyes, that just proves to them that there is absolutely no institutional control at PSU when it comes to holding the football program accountable for anything. Just take a look at the events that transpired since ’96:

      Joe knew in ’96
      Forced Sandusky into retirement in ’98
      Found out of other rapes in ’02
      Kept allowing Sandusky into facilities until ’10
      Lied to Grand Jury in ’11
      And I believe Sandusky attended games last year using the president’s box

      I am sure that the NCAA is basing its punishments on the Freeh report, which was an investigation conducted by a former director of the FBI at the behalf of PSU itself, that resulted in a 300 page report. That is probably a far more thorough investigation than the NCAA has ever conducted itself.

      The last thing the NCAA wants to know is that an institution has been actively involved in a massive coverup that stretched from the football coaches, up to the president and BOT. Heck, even the janitors new about it and were afraid to say anything for fear of getting fired. The NCAA is involving itself because of the massive coverup that involved everyone in the AD (not to mention all of the other PTB, not because of the child rapes of Sandusky.

      Like

  62. FLP_NDRox says:

    It’s so obvious, I can’t believe I didn’t see it before now.

    The NCAA and Penn State have the same problem: they both need scapegoats to make the public pressure go away.

    They found each other.

    The NCAA can say PSU was totally and utterly corrupt and that they are being punished in an unprecedented manner. Now I doubt the punishment will be as bad as the loss of the program for a few years. Heck, I doubt the punishment won’t be something Penn State can’t cheat their way through, but it should get the media spotlight off both PSU and the NCAA for the time being…at least until the NCAA drops the hammer on the Hurricanes again, but State College will be allowed to lay low for a while.

    Meanwhile, TPTB at PSU can say that the NCAA was responsible for whatever punishment that Penn State agreed to (and you know that PSU agreed to it to spare everyone the hassle and time of the lawsuits) and plausible deniability that PSU agreed to anything. Heck, they were using the NCAA as a scapegoat to get rid of the statue, when they knew they needed to just to save their own skins on the PR. The remaining BOTs will use the NCAA as an excuse for every unpopular decision with their fanatical fanbase and keep their jobs. Shoot, the new Uni pres. could not have handled the statue issue this weekend any better given circumstances. Off-topic, but did y’all see how many cops they had to prevent a riot on a summer Sunday morning? I know I saw at least two dozen on the national news shots. Talk about a tone-deaf fanbase…

    I wouldn’t worry about precedent. How likely is it that one man who would be current coach, practically the entire living history of the football program, the public face of the university, and a major donor simultaneously?

    How often will a school and a industry standards board need a scapegoat at the same time for the same situation?

    Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      “I wouldn’t worry about precedent”.

      Obviiously you woundn’t. That was thew whole point of our earlier conversation.

      The mob has prevailed. The rule of law and common sense cannot withstand the onslaught of a politically correct media when blood is in the water.

      Like

      • FLP_NDRox says:

        Would it hurt your feelings less if the rest of the NCAA just blackballed Penn State and the Big Ten just bought them out?

        PSU is happy, the NCAA is happy, the Media is happy. Its never been about justice, it’s always been about money and quiet.

        Like

      • Brian says:

        1. The NCAA has never been bound by precedent.
        2. Precedent is overrated. You don’t have to keep doing something just because that’s how it has always been done.
        3. Apparently the NCAA has a provision that allows the executive board to give this power to the president by vote. Thus, they’re straying within their rules. Just because they haven’t done it before doesn’t mean it’s against their rules.

        Like

      • bamatab says:

        The NCAA has never followed any kind of precedent.

        But in this case, I can see where a decade long coverup that started with the football coaching staff, and went all the way up to the president and BOT would be of great interest to them. I think that is the very definition of lack of institutional control IMO.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Agreed. To me, Lack of Institutional Control is equivalent to “we cannot police ourselves.” Has there ever been a clearer case of a University not being able to police itself? From the President on down to janitors, nobody did the right thing–including people with actual police power.

          This was justice being avoided to protect the football program. What else is it?

          Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Or not? CBS has been out in front of the story this week, and Dennis Dodd makes it sound worse than I assumed.

      http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/story/19634504

      Like

    • FLP_NDRox says:

      Figured it would go like that. ‘Grats to the NCAA and the PSU prez for hitting on just enough to get the wolves off their heels in time for the Olympics, and that it will not be the top story on Gameday come Labor Day.

      PSU will stay, and in about 6-10yrs this will all be behind them…provided the Second Mile scandal isn’t as bad as we fear…and as long the fanatics that are currently wailing and gnashing their teeth on Black Shoe Diaries don’t screw up the deal.

      Like

  63. acaffrey says:

    Unprecedented penalties.

    If the NCAA wanted to do something creative, they would force Penn State to hire Greg Robinson and put him in a head coach or d.c. position for the next 10 years.

    De facto death penalty.

    Like

  64. zeek says:

    $60 million fine
    4 year bowl ban
    Over 4 year scholarships reduced by 40 (10 per year)
    1998-2011 all victories vacated by football
    5 year probation

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I actually don’t think this will be as deep as it could have been. The scholarships were the biggest impact, and that’s basically only 1 year longer than USC’s…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        It’s two extra years on the bowl losses as well.

        Still, I thought the scholarships would be reduced to below 15 per year; I think Penn State will be weakened for around 6 years because of this. By 2017-2018, they should be getting back to strength if they can fix recruiting by then…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          zeek,

          See my comment below for the numbers, but PSU shouldn’t be back to full strength until 2020. They’ll be good enough for a bowl by 2018 or 2019.

          Like

    • mushroomgod says:

      I hope they fight it, but doubt they will.

      Like

      • Peter says:

        News conference said there will be no appeal.

        This is much more devastating than USC because the bowl ban and scholarship loss is simultaneous and immediate. Also, frankly, Penn State is starting from a much more fragile position. They weren’t a USC except in the minds of the most delusional fans. They don’t have piles of 4 & 5* talent on that roster to start with.

        The bowl/conference champ ban being twice as long also matters hugely. You have no hope to offer recruits or current players. And they can leave without penalty.

        Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          Unfortunate. Spineless leadership at PSU.

          Like

          • acaffrey says:

            The spineless leadership was from 1998 to 2001, when everyone (including people outside the power structure at PSU, including police and attorneys) danced around what was in the best interests of the football program and a pedophile. Certainly there is a chance that it was all just a big mistake and not intentional to protect the program. But those odds are slim and the damage is done.

            Like

          • Kw1 says:

            Really? Not appealing is what’s spineless about PSU’s leadership? Are you on someone’s payroll to make PSU fans look bad?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I disagree. Stupid, but not spineless. They took the risk that Sandusky’s judgement was the issue in 1998 and not something more sinister. The real problems were 2001 forward.

            I think the NCAA has jumped the shark on penalizing criminal behavior by vacating wins back to 1998. They are penalizing the school for Sandusky’s 1998 act which was reported to the police and determined not to be prosecutable. They are penalizing them for his acts in 1999 in San Antonio which they didn’t know about. They are penalizing them because of what he did in 2000 and because a janitor didn’t report him.

            The vacating the wins seems stupid. Paterno is dead. If he was alive, maybe it carries some sting. He’s still in the record books with his other 298 wins, so its not like they are making him disappear. They ought to vacate Bowden’s wins for going around talking about it like he’s happy he now officially passes Paterno. My opinion of Bowden has really dropped these past couple of weeks.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I see no point in vacating the wins either. Maybe from 2001 forward. 1998?

            However, I see that as being directed at the people associated with Penn State–the cops, the prosecution, etc. Too much deference to the program.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Guys,

            I think you need to look at the bigger picture. Vacating wins punishes the one group that is otherwise untouchable – the fans. They were complicit in creating the culture at PSU, and pulling Paterno off his pedestal hurts them more than anyone.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            The NCAA started down this path of politically correct lawless ness when the late great Miles Brand decided to go after school mascots.

            And FLP….isn’t the vacating of wins pretty Stalinist? Isn’t that what he did-rewrite history?

            Like

      • Brian says:

        mushroomgod,

        “I hope they fight it, but doubt they will.”

        They signed a consent decree. They can’t fight it.

        Like

    • acaffrey says:

      Seems like an appropriate penalty. Even at this late juncture, Penn State fans STILL do not get it. The University placed the football team/brand above morality and common sense for several years. A slap on the wrist would have precluded change. This is a strong, but appropriate measure to restore balance.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        I’m not a PSU fan….and that’s nonsense.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Nice analysis.

          Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Go to Black Shoe Diaries.

          They are bitching and moaning about how the offenders are all out of the program now. So what? Getting rid of the offenders–any program can do that once caught. USC has innocents being punished. Indiana has innocents being punished. If a school could avoid penalties by getting rid of people, nobody would be punishable.

          They are bitching and moaning about no clear NCAA rules violation. I agree with Emmert that what happened at Penn State was a violation of the NCAA constitution. The negative general p.r. arising out of this incident–including lame rioting due to Paterno–was enough to justify the punishments.

          Note that there is no sense that the Big Ten is appalled by the penalties. Quite the contrary, the only sense is that the Big Ten may impose additional penalties.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            The BIG is pissed that the cash cow that was PSU football is gone. Not to mention the negative publicity that has been generated. That is it.

            I hope clowns like Gee at OSU will at least spare us righteous indignation, but I fear that is way to much to ask.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            acaffrey,

            “Note that there is no sense that the Big Ten is appalled by the penalties. Quite the contrary, the only sense is that the Big Ten may impose additional penalties.”

            I don’t think the B10 will add anything. Several of the corrective measures involve PSU reporting to the B10 via a monitor about the changes being made. As long as that stays on track, I think the B10 stays out of it.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            B1G presser at 11:00 am, apparently.

            As expulsion is off the table, not sure what they are going to do or why it would matter. Definitely the extra-point to the NCAA’s touchdown.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            B10 penalty – no share of bowl revenue for 4 years. It’ll go to appropriate charities instead.

            Like

          • metatron says:

            “Your predecessor was an asshole, so I’m going to punch you in the face instead.”

            So the NCAA has appropriated itself $60MM from the state of Pennsylvania, and lowered the number of scholarships nationally too. They’re on a roll.

            Like

      • largeR says:

        I would very much appreciate if you would stop lumping all PSU fans together. The ones who drank the JoePa cool-aid will continue bitching for the foreseeable future. And, what do you expect when you go to a specific U’s sports blog? You will find the typical half-brain, sports addicted, miscreant! The ones who need to keep shouting their version of the truth louder and louder, because to them, everyone else is stupid for not agreeing with their version of reality. In another sweeping generalization, you indict ‘The University’! Is it a few people at the top who made a huge moral mistake, or is it the sum of alumni, students and faculty? As a PSU alum, I am extremely tired of having everyone and everything associated with Penn State painted with a wide brush.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Fair enough. But if the reasonable fans are not bothering to make the Black Shoe Diaries debate a reasoned, logical one… why should anyone assume that the reasonable fans exist?

          As for the University, I stand by it. The President of PSU made horrible decisions. That is imputed to the University. Similarly, there were failures throughout the University community, from leadership on down. All of this is imputed to the University as well.

          At the same time, nobody is claiming that a biology teaching assistant somehow failed the Sandusky victims. Nobody is claiming that every person within the University somehow did something wrong. Instead, only certain people did the wrong things and they were important people and very wrong things.

          It is what it is.

          Like

          • largeR says:

            @acaffrey
            Not trying to be adversarial here, but when you say, “failure throughout the University Community, from leadership on down”, who is the ‘on down’ you are specifically talking about. If you have a reference to the Freh report, I would appreciate it.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            From 1998 to 2001, there was a failure by, off the top of my head, the University President, the Athletic Director, the Head Football Coach, the fourth guy (I forget his position), Sandusky (obviously), McQueary, the janitors, the police/prosecution in 1998. In the past year, there has been despicable devotion to the program by some of the students (rioting for JoePa) and some of the alums, demonstrating that they simply do not get it. A guy is raping boys on campus, in the football locker room, and PSU failed to do enough to stop it in 1998 or 2001–instead, keeping it quiet just long enough for there to be additional victims.

            The football program was placed on a pedestal. Today, that pedestal was knocked down. And all the vocal Penn State fans can come up with is (a) shame on the media for sensationalizing forcible, statutory rape; (b) shame on the NCAA for punishing innocent people; (c) shame on the PSU administration for not fighting the NCAA; and (d) how fast can we rebuild the pedestal that just got knocked down.

            Wake me up when Penn State finally gets it. Probably about 2016, I suspect.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          largeR,

          “As a PSU alum, I am extremely tired of having everyone and everything associated with Penn State painted with a wide brush.”

          I sympathize with you, but there are several problems on that front:
          1. The administration was involved
          2. The students rioted to support the coach that helped the cover up
          3. Some of the BoT was involved
          4. Multiple quotes from students, players and trustees show more sympathy for Paterno than the victims
          5. The PSU community struggled with the decision to take down the statue
          6. BSD and other online outlets are strongly pro-Paterno and anti-punishment

          To an outsider, these things combine to make it look like all levels of PSU are on the same page and it’s not a good one.

          Like

    • Brian says:

      zeek,

      “4 year bowl ban
      Over 4 year scholarships reduced by 40 (10 per year)”

      They’re also capped at 65 (starting next year, presumably) according to Emmert.

      My rough look at the numbers:
      2012 85
      2013 65
      2014 58
      2015 52
      2016 50
      2017 61 (lots of FR)
      2018 70 (mostly FR/SO)
      2019 78
      2020 85

      Bowl ban:
      2012-5, but likely to miss 2016-7 as well. I’m looking for PSU to downgrade their OOC schedule even more for the near future to get some easier wins.

      Like

      • acaffrey says:

        From the NCAA:

        “Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year, the NCAA imposes a limit of 15 initial grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 25 allowed) and for a period of four years commencing with the 2014-2015 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2017-2018 academic year a limit of 65 total grants-in-aid (from a maximum of 85 allowed) for football during each of those specified years. In the event the total number of grants-in-aid drops below 65, the University may award grants-in-aid to non-scholarship student-athletes who have been members of the football program as allowed under Bylaw 15.5.6.3.6.”

        My #’s:

        2012: 85

        2013: 15 new scholarships, 85 maximum–with a looming 65 though. Maybe PSU imposes a 75 maximum to bridge the gap?

        2014: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum

        2015: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum

        2016: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum

        2017: 25 new scholarships, 65 maximum (25 is unrealistic given the 65 total)

        2018: 25 new scholarships, 85 maximum (85 is unrealistic given the 65 from the year before)

        2019: 25, 85

        Until 2019, I cannot envision PSU having a full team.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          acaffrey,

          I just went by his words, so thanks for the details.

          My #’s:

          “2012: 85
          2013: 15 new scholarships, 85 maximum–with a looming 65 though. Maybe PSU imposes a 75 maximum to bridge the gap?”

          Based on attrition, I think the most they’ll have is 68. They’re going to lose about 20 seniors plus have standard academic/legal/injury/transfer losses, plus anyone that transfers to avoid the penalties.

          “2014: 15 new scholarships, 65 maximum”

          They can have 65, but only 61 will be real. The others are walk-ons getting a ‘ship. That trend will continue as they drop as low as about 52 in 2016.

          Like

          • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

            65 is the scholarship limit for FCS (I-AA).

            Like

          • greg says:

            PSU won’t lose 20 seniors. Guys aren’t going to gamble away their last year of eligibility when they have a month to find a new school, transfer, start practicing, and win the starting job. Most seniors and a lot of juniors will stay. Talented frosh/soph are gone.

            52 on scholarship? C’mon. The lowest they go is 60.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Lets say they have 85 and 15 are seniors and 20 juniors. If they lose half the juniors and 3/4 of the rest, they will be left with 22 players next year + 15 new recruits. That’s 37.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            greg,

            “PSU won’t lose 20 seniors. Guys aren’t going to gamble away their last year of eligibility when they have a month to find a new school, transfer, start practicing, and win the starting job. Most seniors and a lot of juniors will stay. Talented frosh/soph are gone.”

            I was talking losses to graduation before 2013.

            “52 on scholarship? C’mon. The lowest they go is 60.”

            Do the math. Players graduate faster than they can be replaced, plus you have standard attrition and attrition related to the penalties. I started by assuming the players were split equally between the 4 classes which is fairly accurate for PSU because they redshirted almost everyone.

            2012 85 22/21/21/21
            2013 65 15/17/18/15
            2014 61 15/16/15/15
            2015 55 14/13/13/15
            2016 52 12/12/13/15
            2017 61 11/11/14/25
            2018 70 10/12/23/25
            2019 78 11/20/22/25
            2020 85 18/20/22/25

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            They will probably still be able to back count ships to previous years so that they can maintain 65 throughout. In 2 years they will be able to offer early playing time and the bowl ban will not affect those recruits much.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Kevin,

            “They will probably still be able to back count ships to previous years so that they can maintain 65 throughout. In 2 years they will be able to offer early playing time and the bowl ban will not affect those recruits much.”

            They can’t back count because they are limited to 15 as well. They may get to back count in 2013 to the 2012 class, but I don’t know if PSU wants to press their luck. They can’t back count after that.

            Like

      • zeek says:

        Yeah, I think the scholarship losses were lighter than expected though. The bowl ban was in the area expected.

        By 2018-2019, Penn State could be set up for a return as long as they make sure they have a strong recruiter in place…

        Like

        • Brian says:

          I don’t think the 10 per year was lighter than expected. I don’t think they’d ever go past 10 except by going to 0 allowed. I was thinking it might be 5 years, not 4, but that was just a guess.

          Recruiting will be tough as the team will be so bad by mid-decade. They can promise a lot of playing time, though.

          Like

      • bullet says:

        The issue is that players can transfer. With 15, they could be playing with a bunch of walk-ons for 4 years and well beyond even when they get back to 25.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          The saving grace for PSU is almost everyone will stay for 2012, so 1 year of the penalty will pass before they lose a lot to transfers. That’s time for the coach to brainwash them.

          Like

  65. greg says:

    PSU transfer details:

    http://www.ncaa.org/wps/wcm/connect/public/ncaa/20120723/21207234

    With this key nugget:

    Additionally, the NCAA is considering waiving scholarship limits for programs to which these football student-athletes transfer, provided they reduce proportionately in the next year. For example, the limit is 25 new scholarships per year to a total of 85 scholarships. If the limits are waived in 2012-13 to accommodate one Penn State student-athlete who wishes to transfer to a particular school already at the limits, in 2013-14 the school will be limited to 24 new scholarships and 84 total scholarships.

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      I am thinking that they will allow leniency for a school to take A player.

      However, if 5 PSU players wanted to go to Ohio State together, the NCAA might not wave the limits.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        Frankly, no school would trade 5 incoming upperclassmen for 5 recruits. Filling 1 hole is like getting a JUCO player.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          I was just using a hypothetical. The NCAA “can” waive the limits, but it does not have to if there is a reason not to–such as a block of players moving and upsetting the balance of power in a conference.

          Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Of course… if you are a coach on the proverbial hot seat. Might you take several Penn State players if they can help immediately? No point in worrying about next year if you are not around to see it.

          I am thinking of a guy like Paul Pasqualoni at UConn. Or Randy Edsall at Maryland. Can you afford a mediocre or worse season in years 2 and 3?

          Like

    • bullet says:

      So does that mean all the SEC schools will now have 95 players?

      Like

      • greg says:

        With oversigning, they already do.

        Like

      • bullet says:

        Its still going to be hard on the players with this going into effect for 2012. Other than a handful, they really won’t be able to leave and won’t get a bowl. If it went into effect for 2013 they would have time.

        Like

    • frug says:

      No link yet, but Sportscenter just reporter that PSU will be ineligible to receive their share of Big 10 bowl revenue for 4 years. Estimated to be worth roughly $13 million.

      Like

      • frug says:

        Their share will go to charity, not the other schools.

        Like

      • @frug – Depending upon how the Big Ten is phrasing this, the amount may actually end up being much larger since there will be more bowl revenue from the new playoff and Rose Bowl deals in the 2014-15 portion of this ban.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          “4. Fine: Because Penn State will be ineligible for bowl games for the next four years, it will therefore be ineligible to receive its share of Big Ten Conference bowl revenues over those same four years. That money, estimated to be approximately $13 million, will be donated to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children.”

          I assume bowl revenue will be construed to include playoff revenue, but it may only include earned playoff money.

          Like

  66. Here is Penn State’s statement accepting the NCAA penalties:

    http://live.psu.edu/story/60475

    Like

    • greg says:

      It does lay out the payout plan:

      Specifically, the University will pay $12 million a year for the next five years into a special endowment created to fund programs for the detection, prevention and treatment of child abuse. This total of $60 million can never reduce the pain suffered by victims, but will help provide them hope and healing.

      Like

  67. greg says:

    @ESPNMichele: Per ESPN research, w/ Penn State’s ’98-’11 wins vacated, the last QB to win a game at PSU was Mike McQueary on 11/22/97

    Like

  68. greg says:

    Rittenberg/Bennett ‏@ESPN_BigTen

    B1G penalties for PSU include loss of bowl revenue over next four years (approx. $13 million total) and censure. Conference call at 11 am

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Does anyone know what the margins are for Penn State’s athletics department?

      This is a significant loss of money over a 4-5 year time span; you’re looking at $15-16M or more potentially over each of the first 4 years (depending on playoff/Rose Bowl money) and another $12M in the 5th year.

      Can they sustain their 30 sports with a hit that big applied over a half decade?

      Also, what happens if ticket sales fall by say 10k or 20k per game in the middle of the decade? That sounds like another $5M or so out of their pockets…

      Can their athletics budget stand a roughly $100M hit over 5 years…?

      Like

      • greg says:

        10k to 20k per game? I could see them playing before 60k in a 110k seat stadium. 45k for a Kent State game. Things could get really ugly.

        Like

        • Richard says:

          greg:

          Check PSU’s attendance in 2003 & 2004 when JoePa went 3-9 and then 4-7.

          Like

          • greg says:

            I’m not predicting 60k or 45k to happen. But it could. I don’t think 2003/2004 gives much evidence to what will happen when the program is facing a pretty large penalty for 14 years of child rape coverup. The good news is, the greed shown by PSU in the re-seating has already given them a lower ticket base to start with, having multiple ~95k games last year.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        “Does anyone know what the margins are for Penn State’s athletics department?”

        http://www.usatoday.com/sports/college/story/2012-05-14/ncaa-college-athletics-finances-database/54955804/1

        2011:
        Revenue $116M
        Expenses $101M

        “This is a significant loss of money over a 4-5 year time span; you’re looking at $15-16M or more potentially over each of the first 4 years (depending on playoff/Rose Bowl money) and another $12M in the 5th year.

        Can they sustain their 30 sports with a hit that big applied over a half decade?”

        They have to. That’s a condition of their punishment. At worst, the school will have to support athletics a little.

        “Also, what happens if ticket sales fall by say 10k or 20k per game in the middle of the decade? That sounds like another $5M or so out of their pockets…

        Can their athletics budget stand a roughly $100M hit over 5 years…?”

        No. But it will cover much of it, and the school and/or endowment will cover the rest. It wouldn’t be a penalty if it didn’t hurt.

        Like

  69. Brian says:

    http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/penn_states_bill_obrien_has_no.html

    BOB doesn’t have an out clause for major NCAA sanctions, so he’d have to quit to leave PSU. That means he’d have to pay them money.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      Yeah, it sounds like he’ll have to just accept the role of trying to rebuild the thing given how much it would cost him to terminate that contract.

      “Participation in bowl game: 11 percent of base salary”

      That stands out the most to me in terms of incentives. I mean his agent had to be assuming that he would get that money every year…

      Like

      • zeek says:

        As far as silver linings go, the major one for Penn State is that they have clarity now and a timeline for when they’ll be getting back to normal (compared to other situations like Miami that are in a holding pattern knowing that the sledgehammer comes down at some point).

        For the Big Ten, the silver lining is that the next contract renegotiation is for the contract starting in 2017 and so the penalties will mostly be gone by then with the football program presumably getting back up on its feet after that…; I’m not sure how directly this situation and penalties could affect the value of it, but that’s at least going to significantly mitigate the downside to it. That still may include a year or two of mediocre Penn State football but it’s not as bad as if the contract started during the 5 year penalty phase…

        Like

  70. Nick in South Bend says:

    Will the Big Ten Nework air any of these games that have been vacated? Just curious.

    Like

    • largeR says:

      Only the losses! :)

      Like

      • Brian says:

        I know you’re kidding, but only wins are vacated. The losses stay on their record.

        And to answer Nick, yes they’ll eventually show the games if they were good games. They own the rights and the other teams did nothing wrong. I’d guess PSU won’t be on as often as before though except for live games.

        Like

        • largeR says:

          @Brian

          My point (your right, kiddingly) being they wouldn’t want to show Penn State winning any games. I don’t understand the NCAA logic in vacating wins before 2001. Does anyone know their reasoning for that?

          Like

          • bullet says:

            This was not about reasoning.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            largeR,

            They said it was because that’s when the institutional failure began based on the Freeh report. Spanier was copied on emails about it but claims he never heard about the incident and such. The janitor incident was in 2000 I think and that added fuel to the fire with their fear of the FB program.

            Like

  71. Eric says:

    I hate this. I truly do. I hate vacating wins on principle. Vacating them doesn’t change the fact they happened and I’d rather history reflect reality than what people want it to be. Maybe JoePa shouldn’t have had all of those wins, but the fact is, those games were decided on gameday, not this year and claiming anything else is just an insult to the history books.

    Beyond that, they’ve just crippled a team for a decade for something that doesn’t even feel to me like it was done with the intent of preserving football success. Jail time and civil suits all around are called for, but the NCAA should not have been involved in my opinion.

    With that said, I’ll let it go.

    Like

    • bullet says:

      I agree with you Eric on both points.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Eric,

      “I hate this. I truly do. I hate vacating wins on principle.”

      I sympathize, but this is the rare case where I support it.

      “Vacating them doesn’t change the fact they happened and I’d rather history reflect reality than what people want it to be.”

      They didn’t change history, just the NCAA record book. The reason I support it is because the drive for the wins record was a motivating factor in the cover up. The fans put Joe on a pedestal in part because of his wins total, and they have had a hard time accepting reality. This penalty hits them as much as anyone.

      “Maybe JoePa shouldn’t have had all of those wins, but the fact is, those games were decided on gameday, not this year and claiming anything else is just an insult to the history books.”

      The NCAA record book isn’t the sole source of history.

      “Beyond that, they’ve just crippled a team for a decade for something that doesn’t even feel to me like it was done with the intent of preserving football success.”

      Why did they do it? To protect reputations (of PSU, of Paterno, of Sandusky), presumably. JoePa’s reputation was integral to PSU’s football success. You can’t hurt his reputation and expect the team results to have been unaffected. He wouldn’t have coached as long or won as many games.

      “Jail time and civil suits all around are called for, but the NCAA should not have been involved in my opinion.”

      It’s a reasonable opinion and one I generally share. But I also acknowledge it is a gray area so I’m not upset that he NCAA got involved. I’m glad that since they did get involved, they did it in an unusual way that acknowledges that this isn’t a standard enforcement case.

      Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        So you don’t think they ought to be involved at all………….but since they are, you support these insanely harsh penalities? Odd.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          mushroomgod,

          “So you don’t think they ought to be involved at all…”

          Correct, but I’m not militant about it. I can see both sides of the argument.

          “…but since they are, you support these insanely harsh penalities?”

          I didn’t say that. I said I approved of them using a unique method to do it since the case is (hopefully) unique. I do support the levels of penalties, though, because it would be even worse to get involved and then give them a slap on the wrist.

          I don’t think they are “insanely harsh.” My rough guess was about a $30M fine and 5 years of bowl ban and being down 10 scholarships. Trading another year for the bigger fine is OK. Lesser punishments would have been in line with what USC got, and there’s no reason to skip the COI if that’s all you’re going to do.

          “Odd.”

          Probably.

          Like

  72. Alan from Baton Rouge says:

    Looking forward, Penn State’s future OOC schedules look pretty easy: Syracuse in 13, 20 & 21; Virginia in 13; Temple in 14, 15 & 16; Rutgers in 14 & 15; Pitt in 16 & 17; and MACrifice games filling in the other spots with plenty of slots to schedule, beginning in 15.

    With regard to open spots, does Penn State just schedule MAC and I-AA teams? Do they try to schedule Big 5 conference teams? Does anybody of substance want to play a home & home with Penn State over the next several years? Does Penn State get dropped by any of the schools that it has current agreements with?

    Like

    • acaffrey says:

      The 2013 Syracuse game is slated for the NY/NJ area. Makes you wonder if Syracuse and/or the stadium will want to go through with the game. I don’t think Syracuse was expecting it to be a watered down Penn State opponent. I don’t think that the game organizers expected it to be a non-traveling, apathy-driven Penn State fan base.

      Like

      • Brian says:

        acaffrey,

        “The 2013 Syracuse game is slated for the NY/NJ area. Makes you wonder if Syracuse and/or the stadium will want to go through with the game. I don’t think Syracuse was expecting it to be a watered down Penn State opponent. I don’t think that the game organizers expected it to be a non-traveling, apathy-driven Penn State fan base.”

        PSU shouldn’t be down too much in 2013. besides, I think SU would take the win over PSU no matter what. The organizers won’t be thrilled, but PSU fans may see that as their chance to travel and see PSU with no bowl available.

        Like

        • acaffrey says:

          Maybe they should reschedule it for the end of the season?

          Like

          • Brian says:

            PSU would if they could.

            I’m curious to see if PSU tries to schedule HI during their bowl ban and/or just after it. Play the extra home game plus get a pseudo bowl trip. I’m sure HI would be happy to beat up on a B10 team.

            Like

          • acaffrey says:

            I was thinking that too, re: Hawaii. Maybe they need to close that rule exception for teams on probation?

            Like

          • ccrider55 says:

            And deny Hawaii a chance to play, and possibly beat a “king”? When did Sandusky work for UH?

            Like

          • frug says:

            @Brian

            They closed that loophole after Alabama did something similar when the last time they were given postseason ban. (USC was allowed to play them this year though because the game had been scheduled more than 5 years in advance and tickets had already been sold)

            Now postseason ban includes all “exempt games” including bowls, CCG’s and Hawaii (you can still play them but you don’t get the extra home game).

            Like

    • Eric says:

      Interesting question because both attendance and wins might be an issue for a couple of years. One the one hand, you want to schedule games you can win with the depleted man power and that means I-AA and MAC games in at least the worst years. On the other hand though, you need to give your fans something to come see amid a lot of disappointment and that might require bigger name opponents that would otherwise be required.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Alan from Baton Rouge,

      “Looking forward, Penn State’s future OOC schedules look pretty easy: Syracuse in 13, 20 & 21; Virginia in 13; Temple in 14, 15 & 16; Rutgers in 14 & 15; Pitt in 16 & 17; and MACrifice games filling in the other spots with plenty of slots to schedule, beginning in 15.”

      I’m curious to see if they drop the Pitt series. Pitt is moving to 9 games and may not want it and PSU really doesn’t want to lose to them.

      “With regard to open spots, does Penn State just schedule MAC and I-AA teams?”

      Yes. They need wins to keep selling tickets and making money.

      “Do they try to schedule Big 5 conference teams?”

      Why would they?

      “Does anybody of substance want to play a home & home with Penn State over the next several years?”

      Maybe. It sounds better than a MAC team even if they are about as good at that point.

      “Does Penn State get dropped by any of the schools that it has current agreements with?”

      Pitt is the one I question.

      Like

      • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

        Maybe Penn State ought to let all the AQ home and home schools get out of the contract so they can schedule 8 home games for the rest of the decade with I-AA scrubs from the Patriot League and pay them $400k each for the pleasure of playing in Beaver Stadium. If fans still show up, that’s several million the Lions get back to apply toward the fine.

        Like

        • Alan from Baton Rouge says:

          With only 65 scholarships, Penn State will essentially be a strong I-AA team for the rest of the decade anyway.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            So they could still beat MI, right?

            Like

          • bullet says:

            The scholarships are manageable. Its the bowl ban and perception that will hurt recruiting. They won’t get the same caliber of players. They will have depth problems, but basically will have to avoid redshirting players. The NFL got by for years with a 40 player roster and 7 player taxi squad. If you redshirt 15-20 players a year, that leaves 65-70 players that most programs are working with in a year.

            Like

        • greg says:

          Did PSU join the SEC?

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Alan,

          They’d have to buy their way out of those deals I’m sure. I’m guessing Temple is looking forward to a chance to finally beat PSU, for example. I’m betting they’ll fill their schedule with MACtion games, though.

          Like

          • largeR says:

            Temple? I would think the biggest celebration would be in Bloomington! Penn State will be turned into another IU with the scholarship reductions. Maybe the Hoosiers can win their first game and go on a win streak vs the Nitts. I agree totally with Alan above. Buy out the Pitt and Cuse games and schedule the worst of FBS for home buy games. I’m guessing for the next 6 years after 2012, PSU wins maybe one B1G game a year if we’re lucky.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I was talking OOC games, obviously. PSU may still want to play SU but I don’t know if their egos are prepared to lose to Pitt.

            Like

          • greg says:

            I think PSU wins more than 1 B10 game a year. Over the 6 or 7 worst years, they’ll probably outperform 2 or 3 B10 schools.

            Like

  73. Mike says:

    Bowlsby via Bret McMurphy (@McMurphyCBS)


    Bowlsby on future conference expansion across country: “A period of calm would be good” for college football

    Bob Bowlsby: “I don’t know if we would get 2 votes on expansion. If we voted today, we wouldn’t take new members in”

    Big 12’s Bob Bowlsby: “Best days of (Big 12) conference are ahead. Stability far better than public perception”

    Like

    • bullet says:

      Also
      Bowlsby:

      “The pass-through third tier rights, we think that there is an opportunity to monetize those. We also think there’s an opportunity for institutional exposure that is substantial. ….

      I agree with you. Your assertion that it could be an attractive element of having others come to our league, and once all the details are finalized, I think it becomes easier to have those discussions”….

      Like

  74. Brian #2 says:

    Is the Big Ten withholding bowl revenue from Ohio State the year they are banned from the postseason? Should they?

    Like

    • Eric says:

      Makes sense, but I think this is a new policy. Will see if they retroactively make it apply to Ohio State for this season too even though that didn’t seem to be the plan.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      Brian #2,

      “Is the Big Ten withholding bowl revenue from Ohio State the year they are banned from the postseason? Should they?”

      OSU gave back their bowl money from the 2010 season already, but they will get it for 2012.

      Like

  75. Mike says:

    “Death Penalty” closer than I thought.

    http://www.centredaily.com/2012/07/23/3270275/penn-state-president-erickson.html#storylink=cpy

    Penn State president Rodney Erickson revealed that the university accepted the severe NCAA sanctions announced today to avoid the death penalty for the football program.

    In an interview with the Centre Daily Times, Erickson said, “We had our backs to the wall on this. We did what we thought was necessary to save the program.”

    Joined by board of trustees chairwoman Karen Peetz and interim director of athletics David Joyner, Erickson said he signed the NCAA agreement because no better deal was available.

    He said Penn State could have faced at least one year without football and still would have endured additional penalties.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      I’m amused by all the commentators who think that the penalties handed down were worse than the death penalties. The writers at Yahoo! and other websites seem to think so…

      But that’s clearly not the factual case. A year or two suspension of football along with additional penalties would have been far worse.

      The actual penalty is harsh, but it doesn’t demolish the athletics department. As Brian points out above, it basically removes Penn State’s annual surplus and may force them to make a small subsidy to keep all 30 sports going (but it seems minor at best) over a 5 year period of time. Additionally, the football team will be extremely bad for a period of 3-5 years and then begin to crawl itself out of the hole in 2018. With the right recruiters, it could be at full strength in 2020 but that’s not the issue.

      Now go to the death penalty. If you actually suspend play, you’re talking about huge damage to the surrounding community in terms of tens of millions of dollars in revenue from gameday activities. The damage to opponents schedules would be significant but mitigatable; however, the Big Ten would take a huge hit with a loss of 11 or 12 Penn State games (3-4 non-conference home games and 8 conference games) considering the TV implications and ticket sharing arrangement. That’s even before considering that Penn State’s athletics department would face a 1 or 2 year hole of around $60-70M due to ticket sales (would have to be refunded I assume?) as well as the Big Ten possibly yanking their entire TV pay for the year(s) of suspension. Then go to the on-field product, wouldn’t all the players leave? They’d have a full bottoming out to a few 1-2 win seasons after that. Also recall that SMU’s death penalty included 55 scholarships lost over 4 years after they returned. So it’s not as if Penn State would have been going anywhere.

      Put it altogether and you’re talking about a financial impact several times greater on all parties involved in the death penalty scenario. The football impact would be much more significant too in terms of bottoming out. And the athletics department would need a huge subsidy just to stay afloat, let alone trying to fund 30 sports.

      Simply no comparison that Penn State got a penalty that they can survive through with a period of bad football and a more manageable financial loss, while minimizing the impact on other actors (surrounding community, their other sports, the Big Ten, etc.).

      Like

      • zeek says:

        After thinking it over for a while, I’m just relieved that the punishment is manageable. I thought the NCAA did a really good job of mitigating the impact on unrelated parties (surrounding communities, other sports, Big Ten, rest of Penn State’s athletics department). Each of the unrelated parties will get some pain, but it won’t be anything remotely comparable to the impact of the death penalty on those other actors.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Agreed.

          Like

        • bullet says:

          Sounds like they gave PSU an ultimatum. If you don’t agree we will give you the death penalty. Sounds kind of heavy handed, but unfortunately typical of the NCAA.

          Like

          • Brian says:

            That’s not the impression I got from Emmert. To me, it sounds like the NCAA told PSU this is what we’re going to do and PSU agreed to sign the consent to avoid the risk that saying no would anger the NCAA enough to get the death penalty plus other penalties.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            I’m referring to Erickson’s quote above.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            I know. I’m just pointing out that Emmert/Ray gave a very different picture of how that happened. Erickson may be spinning it to protect himself a little.

            Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Goes to my “spineless” assessment. That was a correct call. Academia is not where the courageous reside.

            Like

      • Brian says:

        zeek,

        “I’m amused by all the commentators who think that the penalties handed down were worse than the death penalties. The writers at Yahoo! and other websites seem to think so…”

        It’s hard to compare, but they can make a good case.

        “But that’s clearly not the factual case. A year or two suspension of football along with additional penalties would have been far worse.”

        Well now you’re arguing apples and oranges. The argument people are making is the totality of penalties PSU got versus just the death penalty.

        $60M fine vs lost $60M from no FB for a year
        5 year probation versus 5 year probation
        4 year bowl ban versus 1 year bowl ban
        4 years of being down 10/20 scholarships vs no restriction
        A lot of years of being crappy versus 1 year of no FB and several years of being crappy
        Vacating 112 wins versus vacating no wins

        In either case, PSU would be back to normal by 2020 probably. Before then, who knows? The advantages as far as the NCAA is concerned: I’d say the penalties might be comparable.

        1. $60M for charity versus just costing PSU $60M
        2. Other teams don’t have holes in their schedules
        3. No interference with contracts (TV deals, games, etc)
        4. Easier to assure the non-revenue sports won’t suffer
        5. Less collateral damage to innocent parties

        “The actual penalty is harsh, but it doesn’t demolish the athletics department. As Brian points out above, it basically removes Penn State’s annual surplus and may force them to make a small subsidy to keep all 30 sports going (but it seems minor at best) over a 5 year period of time. Additionally, the football team will be extremely bad for a period of 3-5 years and then begin to crawl itself out of the hole in 2018. With the right recruiters, it could be at full strength in 2020 but that’s not the issue.”

        Don’t forget that current surplus is based on fans paying a lot for FB games. If attendance drops and donations decline and ticket prices get lowered, PSU will suffer a lot more. They could lose half of their football revenue every year for 4+ years.

        “Now go to the death penalty. If you actually suspend play, you’re talking about huge damage to the surrounding community in terms of tens of millions of dollars in revenue from gameday activities. The damage to opponents schedules would be significant but mitigatable; however, the Big Ten would take a huge hit with a loss of 11 or 12 Penn State games (3-4 non-conference home games and 8 conference games) considering the TV implications and ticket sharing arrangement. That’s even before considering that Penn State’s athletics department would face a 1 or 2 year hole of around $60-70M due to ticket sales (would have to be refunded I assume?) as well as the Big Ten possibly yanking their entire TV pay for the year(s) of suspension. Then go to the on-field product, wouldn’t all the players leave? They’d have a full bottoming out to a few 1-2 win seasons after that. Also recall that SMU’s death penalty included 55 scholarships lost over 4 years after they returned. So it’s not as if Penn State would have been going anywhere.”

        Most people assume PSU could bounce back faster than SMU because they are a king and the only FB power in the northeast. Players in TX had a lot of other great choices near by while those in New England don’t. of course recruiting has gotten more national lately so that’s less important than it used to be.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          That’s fair. I’m just saying that the death penalty is like rolling all these penalties into one year and slamming the department.

          Perhaps the impact on Penn State is the same in the long run either way.

          I suppose it’s enough to just say that the unrelated actors dodged a big bullet by not facing the consequences of the death penalty.

          Like

          • bullet says:

            You have to start from scratch. SMU had only a half dozen or so players left after their death penalty. Its like starting a new program. It would be like UTSA jumping right into the Big 10.

            Like

  76. Craig Z says:

    How will this affect upcoming TV negotiations? Penn St was one of the Big Ten’s top teams and one with some national appeal. They won’t be back to full strength for several years after the new contracts start.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      Obviously we don’t know for sure, but PSU will be coming off their punishment and be rebuilding right as the deal starts. For a long deal, a few years of sub-par PSU isn’t a big problem. It just means others are winning more games. By then people will be ready to see PSU succeed again so that should be a positive as the fans start coming back to support them.

      Like

      • zeek says:

        Urban Meyer’s performance at Ohio State probably has more mpact in terms of upside and downside to the next TV contract.

        Penn State in 2016 will be a bad team but past the sanctions; there’s really not going to be any indication of where they’re going to be from 2020-2026 (last 7 years of a 10 year deal), so even if the next contract assumes that they’ll be subpar in 2017-2019, the totality of Penn State’s value is going to be based on what the Big Ten and TV networks think that Penn State’s potential is (because there won’t really be many hints of that in 2016).

        Like

    • zeek says:

      It shouldn’t have a major impact (I mention this above as the silver lining for the Big Ten).

      The new contract starts in 2017 which is just after all of the sanctions themselves end. It will still take another year after that for Penn State to clear 70+ scholarships but they should be strong enough by 2019 to put a good team out there assuming that they do a good job of recruiting in 2017-2019.

      The next contract negotiations will likely be completed by mid-2016, so although Penn State will be a bad product around that time, the new agreement is likely to cover something like 2017-2026 (give or take an additional 2 or 3 years if the contract is longer).

      I don’t see Penn State’s value to the next contract being discounted that much given that the penalties will be in the rearview mirror when the contract starts, and certainly within 2-3 years of starting the new contract, they’ll be back at full strength in terms of scholarship numbers…

      Like

  77. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8192320/fitzgerald-toussaint-michigan-wolverines-suspended-dui-arrest

    And the hits just keep on coming. Fitz Toussaint is now suspended indefinitely for a DUI. That should end any hopes MI fans had of beating AL unless Hoke caves and lets him play.

    Like

  78. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53734/paterno-family-statement-on-ncaa-ruling

    Shockingly, the Paternos have put out yet another statement.

    Like

  79. Brian says:

    http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2012/07/penn-state-board-of-trustees-reaction-rolled-over-played-dead/1#.UA3Si6PHnKe

    This is why PSU can’t have nice things.

    Apparently the administration didn’t discuss the consent decree with the BoT before signing it, so they’re mad. Good to see they’ve fixed their communication issues.

    “It really wasn’t much of a negotiation (but) everything’s negotiable,” Lubrano said. “My view is that we rolled over and played dead. They (board members) want to put Paterno behind them.”

    And this is the bigger problem. This guy campaigned for the BoT in part by by running a Paterno tribute on TV. Now he thinks they could have and should have negotiated with the NCAA.

    Like

    • zeek says:

      The only one with any foresight is Erickson. Whether the bowl ban is 3 or 4 years, whether the scholarship losses are 32 or 36 or 40 over a 4 year period, or whether the fine is $60M or $40M over 5 years; all of those are just minor details.

      The football program is going to be pretty horrible for around 6 years regardless of any changes around those details.

      The key is and was always to make the punishment manageable so it wouldn’t have to all be handled in a year (i.e. death penalty). By avoiding that, Erickson saved them in the long run.

      In a “negotiation” where one side is holding a gun to your head, you take the best possible option and sign the dotted line. Trying to hold out to mitigate minor details would have only raised the possibility of a full suspension of their football program for a year. Avoiding that risk had to be done at all costs.

      Like

      • rich2 says:

        It is all conjecture now, but I believe that if PSU had self-imposed a suspension of the football program for one year for the 2013 season before the NCAA acted, they would have recovered sooner than after this penalty.

        Let’s face it, the majority of posters on this board completely underestimated the severity of this situation for PSU and thought that PSU would never receive the punishment that they did.

        Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak — certainly not a Leader much less a Legend.

        I truly empathize for the loyal PSU alums and “subway” alums who love their school and are devastated by this rapid turn of events.

        Like

        • zeek says:

          A 1-year suspension would have been clumsy and catastrophic for a lot of other parties. It’s unfathomable that any program would unilaterally do that without trying to get any other penalty (and I really mean any other penalty).

          Like

        • frug says:

          It is all conjecture now, but I believe that if PSU had self-imposed a suspension of the football program for one year for the 2013 season before the NCAA acted, they would have recovered sooner than after this penalty.

          Penn St.’s president said he accepted these penalties because he believed the only other alternative was the death penalty which he believed was worse. Yes, a one year suspension would probably have resulted in a return to competitiveness sooner, but it would have devastated the economy of Happy Valley. During the season bars, restaurants and hotels make up to half their weekly revenue on Saturday afternoons and either Friday or Saturday nights (depending on kickoff time).

          Let’s face it, the majority of posters on this board completely underestimated the severity of this situation for PSU and thought that PSU would never receive the punishment that they did.

          Not at all. The majority said they didn’t feel the NCAA should get involved. No one made any predictions about whether they would and what would happen if they did.

          Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak — certainly not a Leader much less a Legend.

          Don’t see how. What would have been different if things had gone the other way?

          Like

        • Brian says:

          rich2,

          “Unfortunately, the Big 10 looks feckless and weak”

          And if they had brought major penalties before the NCAA did, they’d be accused of overstepping their bounds and being unfair to a newer member. The B10 rightly let the NCAA go first and then added complementary punishments.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          rich2,

          Don’t forget the NCAA said they would have imposed the death penalty plus other things. So if PSU proposed a 1 year DP, they still would have gotten other penalties like the fine and scholarship reductions. Maybe the fine would be less or the duration of punishment 1 year less, but that’s about it.

          Like

          • mushroomgod says:

            Interesting Brian…………so PSU kneeled prostate before the NCAA……..the only issue is what the NCAA is going to do. So if PSU offers ANY resistence to their plans the NCAA goes directly to the DP although their aquthority to do so if highly questionable. Sounds like dealing with the Mafia, rather than a purportedly reputable institutuion. And everybody’s fine with that and singing Kumbila.

            Like

          • @mushroomgod – My impression is that it’s not so much that the NCAA actually threatened the death penalty, but the mere fact that such a sanction would be hanging out there as a possibility was going to be more damaging to Penn State at this juncture than the school just accepting this punishment and moving on. I think someone here made the comparison to this being like a company that has anticipated bad news that hasn’t been officially announced yet but its stock is falling precipitously as a result of it. The threats and rumors of bad news are what causes a panic sell-off as opposed to the actual confirmation of the bad news itself. In a way, the NCAA did Penn State a favor here by not dragging this out since the drip-drip-drip nature of bad news about the entire scandal is what has kept this story on the front pages everyday this summer. Penn State was likely at the point where it was going to take any sanctions by the NCAA that wasn’t the death penalty and get it over with so it wouldn’t be hanging over the school for several more months.

            Like

        • mushroomgod says:

          lol at you rich………I can tell you’re heartbroken………

          Like

      • mushroomgod says:

        So if PSU makes a peep the NCAA changes it’s proposed punishment and goes with the death penalty? WTF is that…..and all of this is done with NO formal investigation by the NCAA itself.

        Extremely shady dealing, imo.

        Like

  80. Mack says:

    The NCAA did not go far enough in vacating PSU wins. Should have gone back the full 30 years Sandusky was employed there. Then we could have SMU as national champs in ’82 (I am sure they were as clean then as in ’87) and Miami in ’86 (after losing the FIesta Bowl and its #1 ranking to Penn State).

    Like

  81. Michael in Raleigh says:

    I wonder what the odds are for Wisconsin winning the Leaders division are now, considering tOSU and PSU are both ineligible. Their only competition has to be Purdue. Indiana isn’t improving from 1-11 all the way to division champs. Ilinois? I don’t see it.

    Like

  82. Richard says:

    So will O’Brien stash recruits in JUCOs in the Northeast?

    By 2017, they can issue 25 new scholarships. By 2018, they can go up to the 85 limit.

    Some creative roster management would help. Granted, the guys willing to go the JUCO route won’t usually be the elite, but some kids who grew up PSU fans may decide to do it rather than go to a MAC school.

    PSU could also institute a massive walk-on program like Nebraska use to have. Tuition may be an issue though (unless you get kids who would get a lot of financial aid anyway; or sons of former PSU players to sign on).

    Like

    • Brian says:

      I think PSU will be leery of roster management. If not, PSU will sign 21 recruits in 2013 and back count 6 of them to 2012. That doesn’t send the signal that football is being kept in perspective and could cause them trouble with the NCAA. I think they’ll play it straight and take their lumps. It’s the same reason I don’t think they’ll schedule HI until their bowl ban ends.

      As for JUCOs, that’s for stashing dumb athletes. PSU can’t afford to take academic or character risks with their restrictions, and I don’t think they want to lower their standards and start taking a lot of JUCOs. Besides, they need people to be around for 4-5 years, not 1-2.

      They’ll certainly try to develop their walk-on program, but it’s a tough sell when you can get a scholarship from a team that’s as good or better.

      Like

      • Kevin says:

        I think they have to take some JUCO’s. In a few years they won’t have the depth to compete. I think there is more risk to throwing a few true freshmen out on the field that can’t compete (because they likely will be signing 2 and 3 star players that are undersized initially) and risk injury then it would be to take a few Juco’s.

        Nebraska still goes the JUCO route on accasion and they don’t have too many problems with them. Obviously not ideal but when they get to that 65 ship limit they will have a hard time keeping above 60 for few years since they are limited to 15 per year.

        Like

        • bullet says:

          That thought crossed my mind yesterday. Will PSU be so undermanned that players will get injured as a result of the NCAA actions? Will the NCAA be creating a situation for players to get hurt? But most likely the players probably will just be slower, not smaller.

          Like

          • Peter says:

            Linemen will be a lot smaller. If you lucked out genetically to have potential pro size and body composition, you’re not going to go to a school where you won’t win anything. Way too many other, better offers. Plus you likely won’t be able to redshirt to transform yourself into a Big 10 line player before you have to go deal with them…

            If I’m a QB recruit or said recruit’s parent who knows how football is played, I don’t even consider Penn State for this reason.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            bullet,

            “That thought crossed my mind yesterday. Will PSU be so undermanned that players will get injured as a result of the NCAA actions? Will the NCAA be creating a situation for players to get hurt?”

            They shouldn’t be substantially worse than a I-AA, and nobody worries about them playing bodybag games.

            “But most likely the players probably will just be slower, not smaller.”

            I think it’ll be a mix. The OL and DL will probably be big and slow while the LB, DB and skill players will be small.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Peter,

            “Linemen will be a lot smaller.”

            Maybe, but I tend to think they’ll be big but slow. The MAC is filled with big bodies that were too slow for the B10.

            “If I’m a QB recruit or said recruit’s parent who knows how football is played, I don’t even consider Penn State for this reason.”

            I wonder if BOB will have to change his offense. A true spread like the Air Raid of Leach is better suited to a low talent team. They could go triple option but he has no experience there.

            Like

          • Kevin says:

            @ Brian Regarding the comparison to D-1AA teams the difference there is that the FCS schools usually only play 1 BCS opponent each year. Penn State would have to play a complete Big Ten schedule plus any out of conference games. Things could get ugly but if they recruit okay and redshirt some players the next two years they could get through the tough times. The key for them is to have as many upper classmen as possible when they are going through the 65 limit years.

            Like

          • Richard says:

            Peter & Kevin:

            IU plays a full B10 schedule as well, and they compete with MAC schools for talent. Yet I haven’t heard people at IU complaining about increased injuries.

            Like

        • Brian says:

          Kevin,

          “I think they have to take some JUCO’s.”

          I’m sure they will. Richard asked about stashing players at JUCOs, though, and that’s what the SEC does when it oversigns and players don’t make it academically. I’d look for plenty of JUCO offensive linemen especially, because they need the time to develop and PSU may not have 2-3 years to put a guy in the weight room.

          “I think there is more risk to throwing a few true freshmen out on the field that can’t compete (because they likely will be signing 2 and 3 star players that are undersized initially) and risk injury then it would be to take a few Juco’s.”

          If I had to guess, they’ll have an equal mix of undersized players and underspeed players. MAC teams have plenty of big bodies, but they tend to be a step or two slower than B10 linemen.

          “Nebraska still goes the JUCO route on accasion and they don’t have too many problems with them. Obviously not ideal but when they get to that 65 ship limit they will have a hard time keeping above 60 for few years since they are limited to 15 per year.”

          It helps that NE has a history of going JUCO and has lower academic standards. If PSU takes too many JUCOs all of a sudden, people are going to question their priorities again.

          Like

      • Mike says:

        IMHO – Penn St should take a few JUCO players to help spread out graduation. They will want 25 players a year coming off scholarship once they are allowed to take 25/85.

        Also, I have read that the extra home game for playing in Hawaii exemption will not be available to Penn St. I still think they should though.

        Like

        • Brian says:

          Mike,

          “IMHO – Penn St should take a few JUCO players to help spread out graduation. They will want 25 players a year coming off scholarship once they are allowed to take 25/85.”

          At the end, they’ll want 25 lesser players coming off scholarship, sure. But when they first get to take 25 again, they’ll want nobody coming off scholarship so they can build numbers. With all 4-year players they won’t get back to 85 until 2020. Then they’ll have big classes rolling through to start graduating since they get to take 25 starting in 2017. Below are the rough numbers I posted before to give you an idea. So maybe they take some JUCOs in 2018 and 2019 to speed up the transition, but I don’t think it would help them much before then except to plus some holes.

          2012 85 22/21/21/21
          2013 65 15/17/18/15
          2014 61 15/16/15/15
          2015 55 14/13/13/15
          2016 52 12/12/13/15
          2017 61 11/11/14/25
          2018 70 10/12/23/25
          2019 78 11/20/22/25
          2020 85 18/20/22/25

          “Also, I have read that the extra home game for playing in Hawaii exemption will not be available to Penn St. I still think they should though.”

          That was true for USC as well. They can still play HI, though, and can get the extra game starting in 2016. I’d expect them to try to schedule HI after that as they will need a few years to get back to good enough to make a bowl.

          Like

          • Mike says:

            @Brian – Redshirts (both regular and medical) will throw off your chart a bit. Also, I can’t find any documentation for it, but I believe that giving a walk on a scholarship doesn’t count against the 25 (or in Penn St’s case 15) limit only the 85 (65) limit.

            If I was BOB, I would be building a Nebraska style walk-on program* to help build depth. There are enough good players out there that just need some coaching, training, or an opportunity that could become contributors who would love to say they are part of the Penn St football. If I remember correctly, they can take up to 125 into fall camp up until school starts and then can expand the roster some more.

            *I can think of five walk on players on Nebraska’s 2 deep, including the All Big Ten P/PK and a second team All Big Ten guard.

            Like

          • zeek says:

            Brian, doesn’t the 65 limit kick in at 2014-2017 to give them a year to reach it? You think they’ll go below next year?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “@Brian – Redshirts (both regular and medical) will throw off your chart a bit.”

            They will. I’m not claiming it’s exact. It’s just supposed to give an idea of what could happen.

            “Also, I can’t find any documentation for it, but I believe that giving a walk on a scholarship doesn’t count against the 25 (or in Penn St’s case 15) limit only the 85 (65) limit.”

            If they are an established walk-on, that sounds right. I didn’t count those types of players because they aren’t really scholarship level players.

            “If I was BOB, I would be building a Nebraska style walk-on program* to help build depth.”

            That assumes tons of players want to walk-on to a team with a dark future and no bowl possibilities.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            zeek,

            “Brian, doesn’t the 65 limit kick in at 2014-2017 to give them a year to reach it? You think they’ll go below next year?”

            No, I made these numbers before I read the details. It won’t change by much, though, because they lose a bunch to graduation and attrition (transfers, injuries, etc) and can only add 15 unless they back count some to last year. The unknown is how much attrition they’ll have.

            Like

          • Mike says:

            @Brian –

            “That assumes tons of players want to walk-on to a team with a dark future and no bowl possibilities.”

            There is a significant amount of players that will play for teams with dark futures and no bowl possibilities. The real question is how many will pay for the privilege. The fact remains that Penn St is still a major college program that will have every one if its games on TV. It shouldn’t take a lot to convince a player to walk-on at Penn St with its facilities, support, and opportunities for playing time over a scholarship from (for example) Buffalo. Penn St still means something.

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Mike,

            “There is a significant amount of players that will play for teams with dark futures and no bowl possibilities. The real question is how many will pay for the privilege. The fact remains that Penn St is still a major college program that will have every one if its games on TV. It shouldn’t take a lot to convince a player to walk-on at Penn St with its facilities, support, and opportunities for playing time over a scholarship from (for example) Buffalo. Penn St still means something.”

            Maybe. With ESPN3 and such, more games than ever are televised. Why not take a scholarship to IN or something and at least have a chance at a bowl? The players will be aware that the overall talent level is down, and players on bad teams don’t get as much attention as on a good team. I’m sure some players will do it, but they’ll be farther down the talent scale than PSU would prefer.

            Like

          • bullet says:

            Wonder how many AP voters would leave Penn St. off their ballot if they went unbeaten this year?

            Like

          • Brian says:

            Few to none, probably, since none of the current players or coaches are implicated.

            Like

  83. metatron says:

    What happens to Big Ten hockey if PSU can’t keep the sport afloat?

    Like

    • zeek says:

      PSU’s hockey program is funded by Pegula’s donation and should be self-sustaining given that he went as far as to build a scholarship endowment into it.

      Also, as mentioned above, Penn State should be able to weather most of the financial penalties through its natural operating profit.

      Like

    • Brian says:

      They have to keep it afloat. Not cutting other sports is part of the deal.

      Like

  84. Brian says:

    http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53832/source-usc-pursuing-psus-silas-redd

    Here’s a shocker. Lane Kiffin is the first vulture to pounce on PSU’s carcass, making a bid to get Silas Redd.

    Like

    • Brian says:

      http://blogs.ajc.com/jeff-schultz-blog/2012/07/23/mark-richt-says-georgia-may-pursue-penn-state-players/

      Count UGA as another potential destination. UGA is under the 85 limit but doesn’t have a lot of ties to any of the players.

      Like

      • Mike says:

        @Brian – I would expect that most teams that don’t over sign will be under the limit by a player or two. Right now, Nebraska has five scholarships* available and is shorthanded on Linebackers. I would be a little surprised if Nebraska took any, but they do have a lot of room right now. If I were a Nittany Lion I wouldn’t go anywhere where I actually had to play against Penn St.

        *(in case anyone is wondering how… Signing day miss, NQ recruit, one left school for MLB, and two Transfers)

        Like

        • Cliff says:

          In 2012, the three Big Ten schools that do not play Penn State are Michigan, Michigan State, and Minnesota. So a one-and-done transfer that wanted to stay in the Big Ten, but avoid playing Penn State, might be limited to those schools.

          In 2013, both Michigan and Minnesota are added to the Penn State schedule. Therefore, for underclassmen, if they wanted to stay in the Big Ten and avoid playing Penn State, then MSU is their only choice.

          My guess is that once the kids look around, this won’t be a factor.

          Like

        • Brian says:

          Mike,

          “I would expect that most teams that don’t over sign will be under the limit by a player or two.”

          Agreed, and I’m not slamming any of them for offering these players an option. I just pointed out UGA because I saw an article mentioning them. GT has openings as well.

          Timing could be an issue because soon these extra scholarships will go to senior walk-ons and then there won’t be slots left.

          “If I were a Nittany Lion I wouldn’t go anywhere where I actually had to play against Penn St.”

          Unless the new staff screwed you over, I agree.

          Like