In the wake of the Sandusky Scandal - The Little People Always Get Hurt

The NCAA declared it's punishment today for Penn State in response to the institution's failure to report Jerry Sandusky's child abuse on college grounds. The sanctions include banning the Penn State football team from all post-season play and bowl games for four years, reducing the program's number of scholarships from 25 to 15 per year for the next four years, and fining the program $60 million. The football program will be on probation for five years, and all wins between 1998 and 2011 (when the abuse occurred) have been voided. 

I've read a lot of people voice the opinion that this is unfair to people who did nothing wrong, namely: football players who are enrolled and planned to play for Penn State, past players who worked hard for their win records, and individuals who could have received one of the usual 25 scholarships available. 

This is unfortunately a harsh reality of the world. In the case where larger institutions deserve and receive punishment, the little guy will always get hurt. The workers will lose their jobs over a valid boycotting of a bad business. When a business who is underpaying their staff is shut down, the workers are the ones who lose what little salary they were acquiring. It's a sad situation. Unfortunately in this case there really wasn't anything else to be done. In order to effectively punish Penn State as an institution, these mandates needed to be made. While it wholeheartedly is a shame that innocent individuals will be affected in the process, I see no other way things could have happened. 

Do you think the NCAA's sanctions are fair? 


  1. I think what Sandusky did is sick and disgusting, and the fact that high level officials at Penn State knowingly allowed it to continue is even more despicable in my opinion. While I feel bad for the students and staff that will ultimately be affected by this, I think the N.C.A.A made the right decision. If they didn't do something, they would have been sending the message that at least on one front, they (the school) would not be punished, and I think that is a dangerous precedent to be set.

    For example, if it had been found out that they were cheating during games (giving players steroids to enhance their performance, for example), we would fully expect the N.C.A.A to do something about it, and would be positively outraged if they didn't. I don't see a difference between my example and what Sandusky did, other than the obvious. Penn State willfully ignored Sandusky's disgusting actions, and therefore should be punished accordingly. While its sad that students and staff are going to be affected, I don't see what other choice the N.C.A.A had if they were to maintain any credibility in the world of college sports.

  2. my only problem with the santions is ncaa stripping the wins away for the past 14 years. I don't think that was fair. It affect the players and alumni who actually won the games. I'm not sure if there was something else they could have done instead, but I just don't think that was fair. I have no problem with any of the rest of the santions. But as someone who has played sports my whole life, I would have to say I would hate for wins to be stripped my my records like that, unless it had to do with cheating. This was not cheating to win games, and is in no way the same. What happened was dispicable, but the players should not have their past records wrecked because of it.

    1. I agree. Because the offense didn't really have anything to do with cheating or steroids or anything, it does seem unfair to take away the wins from players who earned them.


Professional Blog Designs by pipdig