Huckleby wrote:I am interested in changing a broad mentality. Shutting the football program down for the year probably does less damage to individuals and the football program than the existing sanctions. I am not interested in doing damage, since innocents suffer the most.
The sanctions are the wrong punishment. A one year halt in the circus is the appropriate and focused way.
I was thinking the same, but reading this
gave more perspective on the so called death penalty:
The repercussions of the penalty were severe for SMU. Once one of the top programs in college football, the school only recently became competitive again. The Mustangs had a winning record in only one of the first 20 seasons after returning from the death penalty, before finishing at or above .500 in the past three seasons.
Found some good points here
3. It would punish the wrong people.
Banning the program would penalize the current players, who had nothing to do with the scandal. Yes, I know that is true in most cases. But it is especially true here. How can you blow up a major part of their lives because a coach who retired 13 years ago was a pedophile? How does that make sense?
With the financial punishment from the NCAA and the Big Ten, the School administration is bears the brunt of the punishment. There will be a reduced number of scholarships for new students, which will hurt the overall program, but not stop it in it's tracks like a year long ban. And the current players will have 1-3 less games a year that they might play in, but they still will play their regular season.
The only part of the punishment that seemed odd to me was the vacating of 13 years of wins. If Paterno was alive I could see it, but it just seems like spitting on his grave for the hell of it. Other than the record book, it's completely meaningless, and frankly who ever just became the winning-est coach ever doesn't suddenly look more impressive.