Um no. This is not a slap on the risk. You could actually argue that a 1 year death penalty would have been easier to recover from. If you disagree, coming up with actual reasons instead of specious phrases would be helpful.
Fantastic conspiracy theory. If you actually read the NCAA's finding, you'd know that the money is going into an endowment to fund child sex abuse programs and to help victims.
There is no punitive damage beyond that. That is the point of that penalty.
Try reading my previous post. This is FAR harder on PSU than what USC faced.
Here's another clear sign that you didn't bother to read what the actual punishments were. Their limit is actually 65 scholarship players. And that's a huge deal when combined with a bowl ban that means kids in the first 2 affected recruiting classes could quite easily go to PSU and never attend a bowl game.
Well...this certainly is a fail parade Chitown. Time for a good fisking.
Frisking?? you will have to buy me dinner first
Um no. This is not a slap on the risk. You could actually argue that a 1 year death penalty would have been easier to recover from. If you disagree, coming up with actual reasons instead of specious phrases would be helpful.
My point is not how easy it would be to recover from, it is about scantions befitting the situations. Yes, a one (or multiple year) death penalty would be more fitting. Not for the ability/inability to recover, but to call out the severity of the crime (literally). The Stigma of being one of two programs to face such a punishment would further sully the 'tradition' they have enjoyed at the expense of doing the proper/decnet/right thing with Sandusky.
Fantastic conspiracy theory. If you actually read the NCAA's finding, you'd know that the money is going into an endowment to fund child sex abuse programs and to help victims.
I DID read it and never contradicted what the funds would be used for. I pointed out that it seems like they want to be paid out first-and will. The civil trials, appeals and payouts will not conclude for years.
There is no punitive damage beyond that. That is the point of that penalty.
Try reading my previous post. This is FAR harder on PSU than what USC faced.
FAR Harder is subjective, it is for only one more year and the point to my statement (which you missed) is to compare the seemingly tirival (and not uncommon) occurance of a violation for a player recieiveing money to a criminal act cover up (and further allowing the perpatrator access to the Univ) by the Athletic Dept and Univ officials. These are two vastly differnt viollaitons are are met with similar penalties.
Here's another clear sign that you didn't bother to read what the actual punishments were. Their limit is actually 65 scholarship players. And that's a huge deal when combined with a bowl ban that means kids in the first 2 affected recruiting classes could quite easily go to PSU and never attend a bowl game.
So basically you like to use the idiom in a different way than the rest of the world? "Slap on the wrist" means to deliver a light punishment. How easy it is to recover from is kind of the point if you're using that phrase. Now that I get what you're saying, I don't necessarily disagree with your underlying point that there would be extra stigma involved with the death penalty for sure. That doesn't mean PSU got off easy though. It just means they got hammered in a way that didn't carry the extra stigma.
So your argument is that the NCAA should wait to financially penalize PSU until after the civil trials? You should also keep in mind that any judgements against PSU as an entity might not come against the same pot of money. The athletics budget is seperate from PSU's other funds/assets/sources of revenue. In the end, I still don't see how financially penalizing PSU over the next 5 years and giving the money to sex abuse groups is "so shady".
So, either you didn't read my post or your missed the point. The one extra year is only for scholarship penalties alone. The full weight of the punishment is that those aren't the only penalties. The bowl ban was DOUBLE what USC got. The scholarship losses combined with a bowl ban of the same length that happens concurrent (which wasn't true for USC) to the scholarship losses makes for a much different (and more punitive) scenario than what USC faced. This also ignores the fact that the transfer exemptions for PSU are more lenient and could allow the team to be gutted before the season even starts.
Which sounds awesome but ignores the impact of combining this with a bowl ban and penalty free transfer punishments (i.e. that the quality of player you can get goes down). It means you either have 3 deeps full of less talented but higher character guys (so that you don't waste schollies on malcontents) or that you risk harming your depth even more by recruiting more talented guys with warning flags. Is it possible to get past this? Certainly. But it is unlikely that PSU does so successfully.
