Penn State Sandusky scandal

Parent Cafe
7801

<p>

</p>

<p>I just want to challenge your factual premise here. I have no idea what’s true for “the majority of Division 1" schools, but I do know that most of the big traditional football powerhouse schools give out more merit aid than athletic aid, often by a wide margin. The outliers would be schools like Stanford and Notre Dame that have big-time athletic programs but generally eschew merit aid in favor of need-based aid. Here are the relevant figures from the current common data sets of a representative group of big football schools for a variety of conferences:</p>

<p>USC: merit scholarships/grants: $11.9 million; athletic scholarships: $6.4 million
Michigan: merit $53.7 million; athletic $15.9 million
Ohio State: merit $36.6 million; athletic $15.2 million
Penn State: merit $8.8 million; athletic $7.3 million
Wisconsin: merit $18.1; athletic $8.7 million
Nebraska: merit $21.7 million; athletic $8.9 million
West Virginia: merit $8.5 million; athletic $5.1 million
Virginia Tech: merit $8.2 million; athletic $8.0 million
Alabama: merit $40.3 million; athletic $9.6 million
Auburn: merit $28.1 million; athletic $9.9 million
Clemson: merit $9.9 million; athletic $5.7 million
Florida: merit $17 million; athletic $8.7 million
LSU: merit $22.5 million; athletic $8.7 million
Oregon: merit $19.5 million; athletic $8.2 million</p>

<p>Outliers:
Texas: merit $1.5 million; athletic n/a (need-based $39.5 million)
Stanford: merit $4.9 million; athletic $14 million (need-based $121 million)
Notre Dame: merit $5.5 million; athletic $14.2 million (need-based $95.8 million) </p>

<p>Notice, first, that the figures in the first group of schools don’t count the additional millions in need-based grants these institutions fund out of their own pockets. In Michigan’s case, for example, in addition to $53.7 million in merit awards, the university contributes $77.6 million of institutional funds to need-based grants, for a total of $131.3 million annually on non-athletic grants and scholarships, about 900% of the amount it spends on athletic scholarships. Notice also that these dollars aren’t fungible. Generally at schools with football programs at this level, football generates enough revenue to fund all athletic scholarships. So if these schools were to shut down football tomorrow, in most cases it would mean not one dime more for merit scholarships. It would just mean there would be fewer students on scholarships of any kind.</p>

<p>I know it’s easy to poke fun at the stereotype of the “dumb jock” football player who struggles academically. But there are also some football players who are quite capable and accomplished students, who are able to earn legitimate college degrees in legitimate fields on their athletic scholarships. And there are many gymnasts and swimmers and golfers and tennis players who are also fine students and are attending these universities on athletic scholarships funded by football. So if your visitor from Mars scratched the surface and got beyond the obvious lame stereotypes, he might see that this whole business is a lot more complicated and a lot more nuanced than you make it out to be.</p>

7802

<p>Xiggi, I certainly did not mean to disparage Texas, which is, I believe, an outstanding university; nor did I mean to suggest that all Longhorn football players are academically unqualified. I am suggesting that large numbers of athletes (especially in revenue generating sports) are stunningly unqualified when compared to their peers. I also know, for sure, that the recruitment of ill-equipped students is widespread, and that academically elite institutions are not immune; in fact they often participate in the process feverishly. And the rationale, or more likely rationalization, of that practice is fatally flawed, thoroughly illogical, and completely entrenched. </p>

<p>The NCAA, the conferences, and the schools want to sell a wholesome image of student athletes playing for the love of the game and alma mater. Coaches are educators and mentors teaching young athletes the values of strength, honor, and virtue. </p>

<p>The truth is not nearly so pretty. So the NCAA slaps Penn State’s hand and pretends that the “football culture” was a Penn State phenomenon. It’s a bald faced lie. Mark Emmert knows, from his time at Washington, how to recruit barely literate kids, how to cover up their crimes, fix their grades, and get rid of them when they are used up. </p>

<p>If I were a Nittany Lion I would be crushed by what happened and I could accept virtualy any penalty or sanction based on the alleged conduct (once proven). But I would have a tough time being lectured by an organization that promoted the type of culture that they now condemn.</p>

7803

<p>bc, I am a high school coach and an enormous supporter of athletics and student athletes. Further, as I attempted to clarify, I understad that there are schools and programs that compete honorably. They are the exception. </p>

<p>I note that you mentioned Michigan, an interesting case. I recently read a book about the RichRod era at Michigan; of particular interest was the difficulty Rich Rod had in transitioning from WVU to Michigan. Upon taking the job he quickly landed several five star recruits, only to have the REJECTED by admissions. He was, quite frankly, stunned.</p>

<p>Bc, from my perspective college athletics is trending heavily toward the WVU model (hello Central Florida) and away from the Michigan model. A familiar recent refrain from college coaches is “give me what I need and get out of my way”. To the extent that the “what” is unqualified admission to talented athletes, Michigan is not giving it, but others are. They shouldn’t.</p>

7804

<p>As I look at the stats for scholarships above, one needs tontake a deepedmlook at the numbers, not just at face value. For instance, percentage of students getting scholarships vs athletes and dollar amounts there in.</p>

<p>If say you have a total of fifteen million in scholarships, with nine for academics and six for athletes, what percentage of the student population is represented in each category. I am speculating in the numbers here, but say the athletic scholRships gp to thirty prevent of the students, and the academic scholarships go to thirty percent of the students, athletics has a bigger percentage. </p>

<p>So say we have ten kids, and seven kids get a total of twnetyndollars and three kids get fifteen dollars. It appears the second group is getting less money, but each kid is getting more.</p>

7805

<p>The Paternos continue on … </p>

<p>[Joe</a> Paterno family sends letter demanding appeal of NCAA sanctions - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8231167/joe-paterno-family-sends-letter-demanding-appeal-ncaa-sanctions]Joe”>Joe Paterno family sends letter demanding appeal of NCAA sanctions - ESPN)</p>

7806

<p>^Stats21,
I appreciate your drawing that distinction. There’s a tendency not only on this thread and elsewhere on CC but in broader discussions of intercollegiate athletics to lump all football programs together and say, “They’re all the same.” They’re not. I remember those recruiting cases with RichRod. In several cases he brought in recruits who met NCAA minimum standards and admissions said, “Sorry, this kid doesn’t meet OUR standards,” and that was that. There were other problems on the academic side during RichRod’s brief tenure, too, including his running off a bunch of players who just didn’t fit his system; all it takes is 8 or 10 players transferring out or going pro early becuase the coach is making it clear they have no future at the school, and down the toilet goes your graduation rate. RichRod was just a disastrous fit for Michigan, the antithesis of the Michigan tradition. Fortunately, Brady Hoke understands that tradition and buys into it, and is restoring it. </p>

<p>Notre Dame, Stanford, and Northwestern also have high admissions standards for athletes, higher than Michigan to be candid. Of the three, Stanford has had the most success recently, but I do think Notre Dame is rebuilding. Northwestern will probably always be up and down but never quite climbing to the top. So there are a number of schools that are standing strong against the barbarians</p>

<p>I had always believed Penn State’s football program took the academic side seriously, and I’ve seen nothing to dissuade me of that view. JoePa turned out to have feet of clay, but he did recruit players who were capable both athletically and academically; he made sure they went to class, and he graduated most of them. That wasn’t what got his program into trouble.</p>

7807

<p>The issue of scholarships has always seemed to me to be a empty issue, perhaps because I am a Penn Stater. At least at PSU, merit scholarships are almost always funded by external sources who contribute funds for that specific cause, and athletic scholarships are almost always funded by athletic department revenues - neither come from the general funds of the university, both are essentially by donations, so it seems like any arguments are to be had with essentially random outside people. People like going to football games, and I have no problem with using some of those procees to pay for athletes to get an education. Some (fewer) people and organizations like to pay for the best and brightest to get a free or cheaper education, and that’s great too!</p>

<p>I should note that I am related (by marriage) to a recipient of a PSU athletic scholarship, and personally received a large amount of merit-based aid based on my academics (including a full ride my senior year).</p>

7808

<p>some info in the NCAA/PSU negotiations that led to the final sanctions … [Inside</a> the secret negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction - ESPN](<a href=“http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/8228641/inside-secret-negotiations-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction]Inside”>Inside the secret negotiations that brought Penn State football to the brink of extinction - ESPN)</p>

7809

<p>

</p>

<p>I did not think you were disparaging Texas. I offered the examples of Young versus Thornton (and 07DAD added Acho) to illustrate that painting college athletes (even in football) requires a broader brush. I also picked Vince Young to avoid being criticized for picking on one of the (many) teams I happen to dislike. I probably could have taken the example of the Alabama QB who was Rhodes candidate and compare him to the masses of dumb as rocks who have gone through Tuscaloosa. </p>

<p>And, for the record, I could not agree more with your posts regarding the recruiting of stunningly unqualified college athletes. After all, in Texas we do get our shares of old shows that extol the virtues of the likes of Barry Switzer, Osborne, and plenty about the more recent cast of coaches. And, if all, fails we have the glorious SMU story that popped up in relation to the PSU averted death penalty.</p>

7810

<p>

</p>

<p>I’m not quite following you, Sea. The NCAA strictly limits how many athletic scholarships each member school can have in each sport, and what they can cover. In football, FBS-level schools (the big-time football schools) are limited to 85 athletes receiving football scholarships. But to use Michigan as an example (only because it’s my alma mater and I’m familiar with it) there are 120 athletes listed on the football roster, so roughly a third are “walk-ons,” i.e., non-scholarship athletes. They don’t all travel with the team to away games, some are “redshirted,” i.e., made ineligible for medical reasons or so as not to use up a year of eligibility while they continue to develop physically as freshmen, some are basically just “spare parts” who may occasionally be part of practice but are likely never to see game action, and so on. The 85 football scholarships are effectively full-ride scholarships and there are no partial scholarships in FBS-level football. </p>

<p>There are similar but much lower limits in other sports. For men’s basketball it’s a maximum of 13 scholarships; again, these are usually full scholarships. In women’s basketball it’s 15. In many other sports, schools will often give partial scholarships (as they’re allowed to do under NCAA rules) to spread out the scholarship money among a larger number of athletes. So in baseball, for example, there’s a maxiumum “equivalency” of 11.7 scholarships, which can be divided up among as many as 27 athletes, with the further requirement that each baseball scholarship must be at least a 1/4 scholarship. And on down the line.</p>

<p>So bottom line, at a school like the University of Michigan there are 765 varsity athletes, out of a total undergrad student body of about 26,000. Of the 765 varsity athletes, I’m going to guess a majority, perhaps 450 to 500, are on some kind of athletic scholarship, but many of these will be partial scholarships, with maybe 150 to 200 on full scholarship, including the full complement for football, men’s and women’s basketball, as well as women’s gymnastics, tennis, and volleyball which are also “head count” sports where it pretty much only makes sense to give full scholarships.</p>

<p>How many non-athletes get merit awards? At Michigan, 49% of in-state students (so roughly half of 2/3 of 26,000, or about 8,500) and 30% of out-of-state students (so 30% of 1/3 of 26,000, or about 2,600) get merit awards. The out-of-state merit awards are bigger, averaging a little over $15K as compared to about $5K for in-state students (but of course, OOS tuition is much higher). In comparison, the average athletic award is about $28K. So yes, athletic scholarships are bigger, on average; and a higher percentage of athletes get them. But they are, given the size of the school, relatively few in number, maybe 500 or so, compared to about 11,000 non-athletes getting merit scholarships. </p>

<p>And remember, these are not fungible dollars. At Michigan, football generates enough revenue to pay for all athletic scholarships and the entire cost of the athletic department, all sports. Take away football scholarships and that money is just gone; the result is not one dime more for merit scholarships, and probably less, unless they were to completely shut down all sports and zero out those budget items in which case the net impact on merit scholarships should be zero.</p>

7811

<p>

</p>

<p>And that is why the NCAA and PSU negotiated a package of penalties that will be easily survived by the PSU and will not … have much negative impact on the rest of the college football nation. </p>

<p>The penalty or the illusion of one was prompted entirely by a strong need for self-preservation. Nothing will change in football until a real big name bites the dust. The NCAA had an opportunity but did not have the backbone nor the desire to do what the country expected.</p>

7812

<p>Based on the post linked by 3togo, it seems some on the BOT need to just keep their mouths shut. A little humility would do them wonders.</p>

<p>If Penn State has any chance to put this entire thing behind them, I think it will be the kids at the school who will make this happen. The culture that is there is not the students, it is the old coots running the place.</p>

<p>"Trustees who remain angry are mad at themselves too. Several say the board should not have tacitly accepted the Freeh report’s findings within hours of its release. The circumstances have a handful of trustees discussing how to overturn the decree in court. (On Aug. 3, the Paterno family formally challenged the consent decree, filing an intent to appeal with the NCAA.) “This was such overkill,” one trustee says. “It’s like walking around with a dagger in you. Emmert and the NCAA are basically ruining this university. They are destroying the school.”</p>

<p>Indeed, much of the fury is directed at Emmert, who in the end may actually have kept the football program on the field. “What I have seen of him and heard of him, I just can’t stand the guy,” one trustee says, noting Emmert’s comfort roaming the stage during the July 23 presser and his media availability afterward.</p>

<p>Some trustees complain that the NCAA used sanctions as an opportunity for university presidents to exact revenge: The Penn State Way of piling up victories while graduating players at the highest levels was something their own schools could not do.</p>

<p>“Mark Emmert showed himself to be a sanctimonious hypocrite,” says Anthony Lubrano, a trustee who joined the board in July and is an unabashed Paterno supporter. “Joe Paterno had more integrity in his little finger than Emmert has in his whole body.”</p>

7813

<p>"… imagined an empty stadium," says Marsh, a former chairman of the NCAA’s infractions committee who has since defended many schools and coaches before it, including former Ohio State coach Jim Tressel. “I thought about the wind blowing through the portals and all the economic and social and spiritual ramifications of that empty stadium. And this would last … years”</p>

<p>Oh gag. This mentality -that an empty stadium is so awful -is the root of the problem.</p>

7814

<p>where is the like button when you need it :wink: ^^</p>

7815

<p>like button pushed!^^^</p>

<p>And I really don’t understand how the Paterno family has the ability to appeal the sanctions. Are NCAA sanctions open to appeal by anyone in the community? Seems odd to me. I understand their motivation, but not their ability to appeal.</p>

7816

<p>I suspect that the Paterno family’s “appeal” (for which they lack standing) is simply a preliminary round in preparing a defamation of character suit that they will press in court. I think they want the NCAA to either successfully condemn Paterno in a court of law or retract their post-mortem punishment.</p>

<p>Personally, I have no problem with this, so long as they follow it through - I would really like to see a real investigation done on Paterno, and this may be the only way it happens.</p>

7817

<p>Pizzagirl, I had the exact same reaction to that line.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>My gosh, now I am wondering what would’ve happened if the NCAA hadn’t been growling ominously. Would the trustees just have hired a yes-man? Or not even done “a sweeping probe”? Kudos to Frazier for suggesting a real investigator, I guess.</p>

7818

<p>hmm, thanks cosmicfish.</p>

<p>I think if it was my family member involved I would want a court ruling of some kind. Certainly more information, preferably under oath, from Curly about the conversations they had about Sandusky.</p>

<p>The more this plays out the more I believe taking strong action in 2001 would have been less damaging overall. To be clear–not just locking Sandusky out of the gym, keeping him away from PSU/bowl games, etc but also calling police, Child Protective Services, Second Mile. “We won’t tolerate this” would have gone a long way to protect the “success with honor”. But, again, hindsight is 20/20</p>

7819

<p>

This statement is so obvious to me that I am having a really hard time making sense of what happened - I just don’t see the situation where any of them could have thought this cover-up was a good idea.</p>

7820

<p>A cover up could be thought of as a good idea if:</p>

<p>They thought it would be successful
They thought the minimum actions with Jerry would make him stop
They thought it would be successful
They valued their program and reputation more than the abused kids
They thought it would be successful</p>