<p>They get it, but after the riots, they feel the need to ease the fanatics into this transition to a none paterno hero worshiping world. Sad but true</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>There may be such people, but I haven’t seen that motivation on this thread at all. Unless you believe that shutting down the football program is tantamount to “bringing down” the university. Many Penn Staters do seem to think so.</p>
<p>I think the use of the word “unprecedented” has more to do with NCAA involvement in this situation since they generally don’t get involved in criminal activity. This case is all about people who were engaged in criminal activity first and tangentially because it involved people connected to the program. It also falls within the NCAA clause of administrative weakness. So yes, involvement by the NCAA is unprecedented.</p>
<p>They moved the statue into a garage bay of the stadium. It weighs 900 lbs, and can’t be all that easy to move. It’s not on display…see the Boston Globe article for details.</p>
<p>Melt it down, sell it for scrap, donate the proceeds to a child abuse foundation.</p>
<p>If, as a result of any NCAA actions, football money dries up, I wonder what effect that may have on non-revenue sports. I assume some football money is currently helping fund some of that.</p>
<p>So apparently the NCAA allots scholarships each year. If that turns out to be a penalty, would that stop Penn State from giving other scholarship money to future football athletes? Colleges have many ways of awarding tuition assistance, including need-based and merit-based. Could the NCAA have jurisdiction over that, too?</p>
<p>And I agree I haven’t seen any cult of people wishing for the downfall of PSU as a whole.</p>
<p>
They already have jurisdiction over this. When scholarship limitations were first introduced one of the first work arounds schools figured out was once the allotted number of football (and basketball) scholarships were awarded then a bunch of recruits got fantastic financial aid packages. There are now rules governing aid and bennies for non-scholarship athletes … I’m not sure how it works but the NCAA is already on this one.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s perfectly OK for a school to give need-based or even merit aid to a student-athlete who is not on an athletic scholarship, as long as it’s done pursuant to a university-wide program that doesn’t single out athletes for preferential treatment. But if they target need-based or merit aid specifically to athletes, then that’s considered an improper benefit–basically, an athletic scholarship that they don’t have–and that would be a major NCAA rules violation. The typical football scholarship is a free ride—tuition, room & board, the whole ball of wax. That is not the typical need-based or merit award at Penn State, which meets full need for only 5.7% of its students, and on average meets only 56% of need. And of the meager FA Penn State does give, much of it comes in the form of loans and self-help (work-study). </p>
<p>The average athletic scholarship at Penn State is about $20K, but that includes a lot of partial scholarships in non-revenue sports; the average football scholarship would be higher. The average need-based FA grant at Penn State is about $6,300. About a third of in-state undergrads and a quarter of OOS undergrads get merit aid, averaging a little over $3,000. If a higher percentage of football players suddenly started getting need-based or merit aid, or if the awards for football players were bigger than for others of comparable demonstrated need or academic accomplishments, that would be prima facie evidence of an NCAA rules violation. </p>
<p>So, can they give athletes other forms of FA if athletic scholarships are reduced or eliminated? Yes. Can they give them enough FA to allow Penn State’s offers to be financially competitive with other athletic programs that are able to offer athletic scholarships? No, not without cheating.</p>
<p>“There may be such people, but I haven’t seen that motivation on this thread at all. Unless you believe that shutting down the football program is tantamount to “bringing down” the university. Many Penn Staters do seem to think so.”
I have not seen such motivation here either, but those who think shutting down football is tatamount to bringing down PSU are a major part of the problem. If the football program is at the heart of the climate in which this all happened, it has to be part of any solution. To say that the football program was not significant enough to be at the root of the problem, and then to say that it is too significant to PSU’s stability, is a contradiction - it either is significant and therefore must be sanctioned, or it is not significant, and won’t cause harm to the school.</p>
<p>I am bothered by the Paterno family’s response to the removal of the statue. They seem to want to be at the center of attention. “The better course would have been for the University to take a strong stand in support of due process.” Indeed. And the better course would have been for the Paterno family to remain silent on this one. Exactly who are they harming by removing the statue? If anything, they should have removed the statue before the report was issued, to protect it from potential vandals, and keep it from being a focus.</p>
<p>Fans were placing flowers at the statue - something I would have expected 6 months ago, not now. The Paterno family doesn’t want him to be the center of attention in a negative way, but perhaps they should have issued a statement asking fans to not make this about him at all. If the fans didn’t flock to his statue, we wouldn’t be talking about the culture of idolization, and we could perhaps view Joe Paterno as a fellow flawed human being. </p>
<p>Perhaps with the statue out of the way, more people can not focus on the victims, rather than “protecting the statue from vandals.” I don’t know if that was the true intent of the students who camped out by the statue, but if it was (and I’m willing to give them the benefit of doubt), I’m glad the University relieved them of the obligation. Those who would deface the statue are just as wrong as those who revere it.</p>
<p>Best comment about the statute controversy came from comedian/movie director Albert Brooks, to paraphrase: ‘they shouldn’t tear it down. They should turn it around so that it looks the other way.’ How sardonic.</p>
<p>Reading the President’s statements regarding the removal of the statue, it seem that the reason given is because it reminds victims of the pain they endured rather than the fact that Paterno had involvement in criminal wrongdoing–I feel that it is important to acknowledge his role in the cover-up. I’ve always thought that it is very creepy for there to be statues erected of living people–it just does not seem right–perhaps, when they are very, very old and retired, but, even then, I don’t think that most people would feel comfortable having a statue erected of them unless they had a very false, inflated ego–I’m trying to think of examples where there were statues of living individuals–Saddam Hussein, Joseph Stalin–people I wouldn’t want to be connected to–there must be some good and deserving examples.</p>
<p>Re: post 6753
The first statue that comes to mind is Alabama’s statue of Coach Nick Saban. Not saying it is good and deserving, just another example of a statue of a living individual erected during his time of achievement</p>
<p>Pretty harsh:</p>
<p>[Penn</a> State Sanctions: What to Expect from NCAA Ruling Press Conference | Bleacher Report](<a href=“Penn State Sanctions: What to Expect from NCAA Ruling Press Conference | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report”>Penn State Sanctions: What to Expect from NCAA Ruling Press Conference | News, Scores, Highlights, Stats, and Rumors | Bleacher Report)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>In fact, most college football teams are money-losers, and yet most colleges manage to field teams in other sports. But for those universities whose football team does make money (or basketball teams in a few cases), Penn State should be a cautionary tale of how easy it can be to become dependent on that money, and how dependence on that money can affect the university’s values, decisions and actions.</p>
<p>^^Depending on the sanctions, budgets will most likely be cut for all sports or they will cut some sports after this year. it’s a well known fact that football revenues funded a great deal of Penn State athletics. They have some varsity sports like fencing and squash that could become club sports or they could try and get the alumni from those sports to support which happened at my oldest son’s undergrad…they were going to drop a sport and the alumni were so upset they created a trust fund to fund the sport. i think it’s naive to think that if huge financial sanctions are imposed on top of the legal and civil litigations that life will continue on at penn state the same without the football revenue.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>I don’t think getting rid of the football program = bringing down the university. In fact I think just the opposite; digging it out from under all the layers of football hoopla will allow the rest of the university to shine through. </p>
<p>I look forward to the day when the general public recognizes the school for its long record of academic success instead of its long record of football success. For decades the only words that came to the minds of many and perhaps most people when you said “Penn State” were “Football” and “Paterno.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an excellent idea.</p>
<p>
[Penn</a> State Nittany Lions not facing ‘death penalty’ Monday by NCAA, source says - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/penn-state-nittany-lions-not-facing-death-penalty-monday-ncaa-source-says]Penn”>Penn State Nittany Lions not facing 'death penalty' Monday by NCAA, source says - ESPN)</p>
<p>Some people do not know when to hold their tongues.</p>
<p>"i look forward to the day when the general public recognizes the school for its long record of academic success instead of its long record of football success. For decades the only words that came to the minds of many and perhaps most people when you said “Penn State” were “Football” and “Paterno.”</p>
<p>Exactly – I agree. I have no interest in football…never did. My PSU education has allowed me to earn a good living…and I have lots of good memories and friends from my years at Penn State. I think that the potential cancellation of the football season will most directly impact the local economy of State College. There are very few jobs that are not directly or indirectly related to Penn State. It will more financially impact the rank and file food vendor employee than the members of the Board of Trustees. There is not much else happening in that part of PA. Anyway whether or not they play or not…it’s just not something I do… I won’t be watching.</p>