August 2nd, 2012
The
Consequences of Allegiance
At last, the Penn State
molestation debacle has
reached a resolution, at least in a punitive sense.
Obviously though, the damage to Penn
State's reputation
(rightfully)
won't be repaired for a decade...if ever.
The athletic department in Happy
Valley will likely have a
permanent
black stained affixed to its present, future, and especially its
past. But with the NCAA sanctions
spelled out, it would appear that PSU
has
hit its low point. Which
is, for all intents and purposes, a good thing for them. It will certainly be a long road back for the
Nittany Lions from the deplorable acts of
that
monster Sandusky and the
administrators who swept his monstrosity under the rug, but at least
that road
can now begin. Penn
State knows specifically
what it is
up against, the guilty parties have been exiled or put in jail, and
though the
sanctions will severely handcuff their ability to rebuild a competitive
football program, football will still go on.
In fact, Penn State,
despite an alleged twenty year cover up of a pedophilic sex offender,
will not
miss a single game. Many of the
victories accrued under Joe Paterno have
been vacated
due to his alleged participation in the scandal, but those games are
gone by
events of the past. Most importantly,
those checks have already been cashed (whether the merchandising
checks, the
ticket sales checks, the television rights checks, and on and on). So who cares about losing those wins? The only debate that remains is whether the
NCAA handed down the appropriate ruling against Penn
State. And
because the NCAA sanctions will do
nothing but keep things the way they were, it seems obvious that they
most
certainly have not. In fact, the
punishment falls many football fields away from fitting the crime.
Strangely, many think that the NCAA was too harsh on Penn
State. Some
called the sanctions "bone-crushing" while others compared NCAA
President Mark Emmert to Roger Goodell,
the NFL Commissioner known for taking a severe stance on punishing
infractions. Emmert
himself said it could be argued this the punishment inflicted on Penn
State was, "greater than any
other seen in NCAA history." And it's true, the
specifics of the punishment were far reaching: a sixty million dollar
fine, a
four-year ban on post-season play, and a loss of numerous scholarships. No one was advocating for leniency in regards
to the criminal activities committed by Sandusky
and company, but there was a vocal group of commentators who felt that
the NCAA
sanctions were unduly harsh because of the affected parties: namely,
the
players and coaches who are currently stationed at PSU. Some have gone so far as to claim that the
NCAA sanctions were only "punishing the innocent."
There has been an outpouring of sympathy for the
peripheral characters in this story. No
one feels bad about Sandusky,
or Paterno, or even Penn
State; but, the public does
seem
concerned about the fate of those who depend on PSU
football. Which is what is laughable
about the thought that the NCAA sanctions were too "harsh." The sanctions were actually lenient in the
sense that the NCAA didn't even utilize its most effective tool: the
Death Penalty
(A complete shutdown of an athletic program).
Was Penn State
crippled in terms of having a quality football program?
Of course. But
they still have a program. Like I said,
they won't miss a single game,
despite having been involved in a long and protracted effort to protect
a child
molester! It was easily the worst
scandal in collegiate sports history. If
you don't give the death penalty for something like this...I can't
imagine what
it might be used for. I don't really
want to, as it appears that it would have to be something truly
terrible. (Oh wait, the NCAA already used
the Death
Penalty on Southern Methodist University in the late 80's.
All they did was pay players to play. How
in the hell does protecting a molester
deserve a lesser punishment?)
The rationale behind the NCAA not inflicting the Death Penalty
on Penn State
was the same thinking that left sympathizers feeling sorry for the
current PSU
football program: you can't punish someone for something that someone
else
did. There was concern for the affected
parties that stemmed beyond the football program as well.
For example, if you shut down football in Happy
Valley, what about the
vendors and
people who work at the stadium who rely on the games to earn a living? What about the local businesses on PSU's
campus
that rely on the influx of game-day crowds to keep their businesses
afloat? What about Penn State's
opponents in the Big Ten, who rely on the popularity and tradition of
Penn
State to enhance interest in their own games?
All of these interests are linked to the Penn
State football program, and
each
would suffer if PSU got the Death
Penalty
and missed even a year of NCAA competition.
But criminal investigations cannot be viewed in this
ripple-effect manner. Sports
is a money machine, sure. And
everyone wants the money machine to keep on churning out money; but no
one is
entitled to anything. You hitch your
wagon to whatever you want. If you
choose sports, then you are subject to the highs and lows of the
industry. Sports, though we act as if they
are, are not
national institutions. What happened at Penn
State was, in effect, a
criminal
conspiracy to harbor a known sex offender and cover up all of his
illicit
activity. Because it was the Penn
State football program that
initiated these criminal efforts, it is the Penn
State football program that
should get
punished. Critically, though, the
punishment must be levied disregarding the ancillary interests affected
by said
punishment.
For example, if a drug dealer is arrested, should his
family be able to keep the belongings they accrued from his criminal
transactions? Of
course not. They are not
necessarily "guilty"
by association, but they surely will be "punished" by
association. They will lose the house
and cars and jewelry and everything else, even if the family members
had no
knowledge of the criminal activities that were allowing for those
things and
are completely innocent. You can't
inherit guilt; you can inherit punishment.
When the department of justice goes after a criminal, they put
blinders
on in regards to the consequences of their prosecution.
They punish the bad guy and ignore the
fallout.
This is exactly how Penn
State should have been
treated by
the NCAA. They did the crime; they
should lose the privilege of profiting from a football program. All of the other affected people aren't a
consideration. Why? Because
there is always risk implicit in
association. If I apply for a position
in a company, and that company later turns out to be some criminal
front for
illicit activities, though I may not have known about the criminality,
I certainly
am not entitled to protection because of my ignorance.
When the company is torn to pieces, there
will be no leniency on the crooks in charge just to protect the people
that
knew nothing. This isn't a moral or
ethical choice on behalf of the justice department or governing bodies
like the
NCAA; it's simply an unsavory consequence of dealing with large,
interconnected
organizations like a company, a football program, or a conference of
schools. You go after the guilty parties
without regard to the innocent parties that may be affected by your
ruling. You ignore the collateral damage.
The players (new and old), the coaches, the Pennsylvania
business owners, and the Big Ten all put their faith in Penn
State. They
all entered a willful contract of some
sort with the university (whether document-based or just implied) which
meant
that they were culpable to the actions of the university.
If the university decides to involve itself
in a scandal like it did, the ensuing fallout should land on everyone
who stood
with it. Is it a shame that Penn
State football players won't
be
able to play in a bowl game for the entirety of their collegiate career? Sure.
But remember that they made the choice to commit to PSU. There is risk inherent in every choice we
make. This is an extreme example of that
risk actualizing into inescapable damage, but the rarity of the event
shouldn't
filter our perception of acceptable punishment.
The truth is that every criminal or punitive judgment
will affect innocent parties. The system
cannot work based on leniency for these peripheral interests. Penn
State deserved to lose its
program
outright for an extended period of time.
But it didn't. It didn't even
lose a single game. And though the NCAA
has made it damn near impossible for Penn State to be any good, the
show will
go on as usual for everyone else: the vendors will still sell their hot
dogs in
the stands, the restaurants and hotels around the stadium will get
their
business, and the Penn State players and coaches will still get a full
NCAA
regular season. Wins were vacated,
statues were taken down, and fines were paid, but other than a deeply
diminished football program, PSU
hasn't
changed at all.
There was no punishment that was too harsh for Penn
State. The
NCAA should have thrown everything they
could at them. Instead, they straddled
the line: punishing them enough to eviscerate the PSU
football program, but refusing to tear down the whole system to send a
message
about what America
expects of its universities. Penn
State is a school first, it
must be
remembered, and an athletic interest second.
Schools are charged with the responsibility of bettering our
nation's
youths. It is almost unthinkable that
they would be involved in a scandal to abuse the same youths they were
meant to
protect. But they were.
I wouldn't have batted an eye if Penn
State lost its football
program
forever. Some acts are so brazen, so
ostentatiously deviant and criminal, that there should be no call for
mercy and
no standard by which to offer it.
As for those whose crime was nothing but associating with
Penn State,
remember that College Football is run like a business.
And in business, we've learned time and
again, the innocent are indistinguishable from the guilty.