Could the Sandusky case change college football?

[Ken D]

I honestly don't believe the Sandusky case will truly change the behavior of pedophiles, or even how we as a society deal with them. We always say we need to change this, or that, so something like this will never happen again. But it will happen again. You can take that to the bank.

But could it change the very nature of college football?

I believe that the lesson that universities need to learn from this case has nothing to do with pedophilia. It has to do with with relationship big-time sports have with their host schools. It has to do with allowing sports, and more particularly, iconic coaches, to become larger than the university itself, and no longer effectively under their control.

IMO, several changes need to come out of this mess. First, coaches should be subject to a mandatory retirement age. We must establish the principle that no man is irreplaceable. All men are replaceable. The race between Bobby Bowden and Joe Paterno for the record of who has the most career wins came to a bad end for both these men, and even more for their schools. I believe that it changed both men for the worse. It caused them to put their egos ahead of their schools and their teams.

Second, and perhaps the most important, is that we have to acknowledge as a society that we are always going to put our sports heroes ahead of our academic heroes. If football is going to be a part of our universities, it will always be the most dominant part, and it won't be effectively controlled by university presidents. We don't like this about ourselves, and we even deny it. But we enable it, and I don't see that changing.

We must also acknowledge that major college football, and men's basketball, are not amateur activities, and haven't been for a very long time. They are professional enterprises largely unrelated to the educational mission of the schools they represent. As such, they should not - under our existing tax laws - be entitled to the treatment that Congress and the IRS have afforded them for political reasons. We, the taxpayers, subsidize the multimillion dollar salaries of the iconic coaches who regularly let us down.

I believe that these two sports should be treated as unrelated business activities, and taxed accordingly. And they should be separated from from those sports that we support because they further the educational goal of "a sound mind in a sound body".

I'll have more specific recommendations for how to do these things in the comments section. What do you all think?

[kdub]

What do I think?

I don't think it will significantly change college football, not permanently anyway. Oh, for a few years you may see some differences, but in the long run I think things will stay the same. At the end of the day, Joe Fan honestly cares more about 4 team playoffs vs. bowl systems in the football sense. While appalled at what happened at PSU, the average fan will shuffle it to the back of their mind in relation to the sport itself. They'll eventually lament the sadness of how Paterno's legacy became tarnished due to his own choice not to act. Some will fume at what Sandusky did and that it was covered up by Paterno and the higher ups at PSU. But, all of that will not be nearly as important to them as how well their team is going to do this year.

As for the other part of your post, I don't think that is very realistic. 1) If they're separate business entities, then they cannot carry the name of the school. Alumni aren't going to support the Chapel Hill Tar Heels semi-professional football team. Heck, non alumni-fans probably aren't going to either. Very likely that many would not support a basketball team that actually wasn't "UNC" for that matter. 2) Money earned from football and basketball (at least at schools that actually manage to turn a profit) often is used to underwrite non-revenue sports, especially women's sports. The Title IX implications would be unclear, but would have to be investigated and worked around. 3) A more realistic expectation may be for the NCAA to actually grow a set of.....teeth. The NCAA needs to streamline its rules and then enforce them equitably. Unfortunately, the NCAA has almost 0 control over FBS football beyond eligility and rules infractions. So, football may be a lost cause.

As bad as the system is, I don't see it changing significantly. People are going to cheat. Popular coaches/players will be protected no matter the cost. I honestly think there is a signifcant portion of sports fans now that are so jaded that these things are more expected than not by them. And as long as they can watch their football or basketball, they really don't care. All you really have to do is look at the way students rallied around JoePa last year and how his former players are still rallying around him even after the Freeh report.

[Ken D]

I didn't say they were separate business entities. I said that those sports' primary purpose is entertainment, not education. Under existing law, income from activities unrelated to the purpose from which a 501(c)(3) corporation (which universities are) derives its tax-exempt status are subject to income tax. For example, if a school decided to open up its own movie theater on campus to generate more revenue, any profits from that venture would be taxable at prevailing corporate rates.

One way schools keep the IRS at bay on this issue (and be assured that the IRS wants to be kept at bay) is by artificially eliminating "profits". They do that by lumping the two revenue sports with the money-losing so-called "Olympic" sports. At some point, though, the gulf between those two disparate groups will become so wide it will be hard to make the case that they should be allowed to be combined. I would argue it already is. But until some taxpayers become sufficiently aroused by a scandal to make that argument, the point will likely remain moot.

One issue which might become such a trigger is the proposal to pay cash stipends to football and basketball players and not pay them to athletes in non-revenue sports. I'm sure that attorneys for the NCAA and its member schools are aware of the potential tax pitfalls of such a decision.

I'm not sure it's the NCAA that needs to grow a set. I think it's the presidents of the schools themselves, who are afraid of negative reaction by their alumni to efforts to place football under the control of the school instead of the other way around.

[mattncsu02]

Unfortunately, I don't think it will change a thing. The only time we'll hear about all of this come football season will be if Penn State's team doesn't do well. A bad season by Penn State will be contributed to the controversy by the talking heads on ESPN, and everything else will be business as usual....unless another scandal is exposed at a different school.

[Ken D]

Now that (to quote Tom O'Brien) the NCAA has made Penn State a Division IAA program, what are the chances the Big Ten will consider expelling them?

About the only value PSU brought to the Big Ten table was the attractiveness of its football program to the TV networks. Without that, they are just a drain on league revenues. They've already decided that PSU won't share in bowl revenues. But the big bucks are in the TV contract.

[kdub]

I think the Big 10 will hang tight for awhile. PSU may eventually choose to leave on its own. I did find it interesting that the NCAA basically threatened PSU with the death penalty if they didn't accept the sanctions.

[Ken D]

Jul 24, 2012 11:18:47 GMT -5 kdub said:

I think the Big 10 will hang tight for awhile. PSU may eventually choose to leave on its own. I did find it interesting that the NCAA basically threatened PSU with the death penalty if they didn't accept the sanctions.

They would be better off with the death penalty, IMO. Now they'll be in a "persistent vegetative state" with nobody to pull the plug.

[mattncsu02]

Yeah, the sanctions were severe to say the least. I don't think they are unwarranted though. For what those unfortunate kids went through, I think they are justified.

*Self edited the rest of this post for lack of taste.*

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

To the point of the thread (short and simple, just like me):

1) Jerry Sandusky is a vile, low-life POS who doesn't deserve to see the light of another day. The fact that he was a football coach and used his position in the community and took advantage of the "opportunity" afforded him by easy access to Penn State's shower room doesn't change that fact, for either better or worse.

2) The "Sandusky Case" shouldn't change college football at large, because it wasn't a football problem (the Catholic Church continues to exist, no?).

3) With all due respect and may he (somehow) find a way to rest in peace, but I lay the END result of this matter at the feet of the martyred Joe Pa. And Mike McQueary. And Curley. And Spanier. And at the feet of any other gutless, spineless, nutless, soulless, mouth-breathing, knuckle-dragging, oxygen-thieving waste of protoplasm that was connected IN ANY WAY with Penn State University between AT LEAST 1998 and 2011 and did ABSOLUTELY F'N NOTHING AT ALL to try to stop the abuse, assault, and exploitation of CHILDREN IMMEDIATELY UPON GAINING KNOWLEDGE of Sandusky's activities.

I, for one, wholeheartedly applaud and exalt the HONORABLE Mark Emmert for doing in one day what NO ONE at Penn State had the testicular fortitude to do over AT LEAST a 14 (FOURTEEN ?!?!?!?!) year period - take swift, sure, decisive action. Guarandamtee anybody that if Paterno's, or McQueary's, or Curley's, or Spanier's young son was one of Sandusky's victims they would've acted PRONTO; REALLY?!?!?! McQueary claims he "SAW" an act, and he only told Paterno's about it? Why didn't he charge in and put Sandusky's head thru the wall?!?!?!?! Gutless punk should never work in a position of authority over young people (anyone less than 18) again. The rest should be hung; at least McQueary "tattled", which is better than nothing, which is what all the rest of those scumbags did.

P.S. Matt, I like your posts and your spirit, but your joke's not funny - not here. Not now. Sorry, pal, but it's not. Be better than that.

[mattncsu02]

You're right Marty, it wasn't the right place for my joke. I've taken the liberty of removing it. Thanks for putting me in my place without being an ass about it. I've never taken offense to constructive critisism.

You hit the nail right on the head with your post. Every stinkin' one of them should have the book thrown at them. What happened over the past two decades should have never happened!

[kdub]

I toss you a karma point for being man enough to admit you were wrong and to fix it rather than the typical internet response. Kudos.

[mattncsu02]

Thanks kdub.

[Harnett Co. HEEL]

Yeah Matt. It takes a man to see the err of his ways. Good job owning up to the mistake and cleaning it up.

[mattncsu02]

Thanks Harnett.

I didn't realize how disrespectful the joke was until I saw what Marty wrote and read my post again. I thought to myself, "Geez dumbass.....that wasn't cool." So, I took it off. I really didn't mean anything by it, but regardless....not the time or place.

It's nice to know that somebody can make a mistake on this board, be called out, own up to it, and not be crucified like "other" forums tend to do. That's why I love this place.

[mattncsu02]

Oh, and not to make light of what happened at PSU, but State got a transfer out of it! I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of players transfer from that program. Would you want to be associated with PSU if you were a player right now? I wouldn't.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

Adults post here, not degenerates; that's why "mistakes" are mistakes rather than matches put to fuses - just sayin'.

Speaking of, sounds like Tim Buckley has a chance to be a good player for the Pack. Over to the cat box, it took no time for some pale blue nuts to start ragging on NCSU for 1) taking him, 2) him being worthless because he was "only" a walk-on at Penn State, and 3) because NCSU was "profiting" from the tragic misery at Penn State.

Curiously, I didn't see any of those same people belittling Silas Redd and Southern Cal, although he is a junior and was PSU's leading rusher last season. I guess schools that have been on NCAA probation recently for improper benefits stick together? Yeah, I'm sure that's it.

[mattncsu02]

I wouldn't consider it profiting from the misery, but rather giving a young man an opportunity to play at a school without the being in the shadow of a huge scandal. Like I said, the bleeding has just started at PSU. I think we'll see a lot of players leaving.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

Matt,

I totally agree with you - how could NC State "profit" from this by taking a low-level former walk-on? Some of the posts I read actually contained both of those points. Gotta wonder about some folks' mental and emotional conditions.

[mattncsu02]

Well Marty, it was on WRAL, so expectations for a sensible discussion shouldn't be very high.

[Marty Da Hungry Wolf]

Hear, hear.