A few weeks ago, the NCAA announced that they were removing the ban placed upon Penn State two years before scheduled. The early removal raises questions of how fair the ban truly was. I looked more into it and found that I wasn’t in total agreement with the punishment itself. Like the Athenians in the Melian Dialogue, the NCAA has their own ways of justifying their actions, ways that I personally don’t agree with.
I am interested in discussing the validity and fairness of punishing a school’s football program, and thus punishing the players, for a crime committed by coaches and staff.
In 2012, Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant coach of the Pennsylvania State University (PSU) Nittany Lion’s football team, was found guilty of sexual assault on multiple minors during his coaching career, which had lasted from 1969 to 1999. Many people at PSU, including the president, athletic director, and head coach, Joe Paterno, were aware of Sandusky’s actions, but kept them hidden.
A statue of Joe Paterno, which has since been removed from campus.
In an article from USA Today in 2012, the punishments are described. The most notable parts include the 4-year postseason ban, reduced number of scholarships, and removal of wins from record books. Of course, when a case like this arises, the NCAA has to determine the proper way to punish a team. To me, their perspective of justice, demonstrated by their actions two years ago, was poor.
First, let me make it clear that I absolutely do not support any of Sandusky’s horrific actions or Paterno’s attempts to hide such actions, and I am not arguing that the NCAA should not have imposed a punishment. I am arguing that the punishment itself, and the widespread effects it had, were not just, and not fair.
The first question I asked was: who is truly the victim of the punishment? Paterno may have been stripped his 111 wins in the record books, but no one will ever deny that these wins did actually happen. The current student athletes at PSU seem to be the ones who received the largest punishment for a crime that 1) they were likely unaware of, 2) not participating in, and 3) was committed years before they arrived on campus. Regardless, these players were the ones deemed ineligible for bowl activity.
These guys did nothing.
Is it fair that innocent, unaware people are affected when their predecessors and their superiors are the ones at fault? Is that even a question? Sandusky’s actions are horrible and he, along with those aware of the crime, were rightfully punished. But the impact of the punishment had a much larger effect than just on them.
The Athenians, who we read about in the Melian Dialogue, justified their position based on the fact that they were the strongest and thus could rightfully do as they please. Their logic seems flawed and irrational, to say the least. The NCAA’s view of justice determined that all of those temporarily affiliated with the program are at fault, and thus can be punished. This type of logic seems pretty flawed as well. The fact is the punishment damaged the morale and spirits of every person associated with PSU, including the athletes, students, and fans. The NCAA justified their punishment based on a few peoples’ actions, yet they imposed one of the harshest punishments in college football. A ban of this stature can only be justified when a sizeable majority commits the crime.
This punishment is similar to the one imposed upon the University of Southern California in 2010. A few of USC’s star players, Reggie Bush for football and O.J. Mayo in basketball, had received gifts from agents around 2005. The punishment enacted 5 years later, when an entirely new wave of coaches and players had come into the scene, was rough: banning the team from two years of bowl games. Just like in the Penn St. case, people who did not commit the crimes were punished and felt the harsh effects of that punishment. The NCAA needs to find a way to punish those who are at fault without affecting those who are not. Penn State and USC are two very large institutions, with hundreds of thousands living students, faculties, and alumni. Yet, when just a few people decide to break the rules, all of these people feel the effect, directly or indirectly.
Check out at all these Penn State fans watching their really good team not play in bowl games.
The Athenians feared showing signs of weakness. The NCAA fears being inconsistent. Since there are always problems that must be dealt with, the NCAA has to be uniform in their punishments. From the two examples above, we can see that in fact the NCAA has been consistent with their punishments. They are fair in that they have not shown any bias or favor towards certain programs. They have not been fair, however, in the punishments themselves.
When it is necessary to impose a punishment, there are certain questions that need to be asked. What people specifically are at fault? Does the suggested punishment affect those who are not guilty? How can a punishment be enforced without damaging those who are innocent? I understand that determining a proper, consistent means of justice is very difficult for the NCAA, but I believe there are better ways than those applied here in the Penn State Scandal.
I sympathize with Penn State, but I still don’t like you, Mr. Paterno.
Touchdown Theory 
I believe that Penn State deserved worse sanctions actually. The initial punishment was much deserved (however, more legal action should have been taken against the big shots at the university). When comparing Penn State’s situation to USC’s it is easy to see the folly of the NCAA. USC got a 2 year bowl ban because of the actions of a signal player’s family (Reggie Bush’s family took money from an agent), while Penn State officials knowingly did not report sexual abuse to the authorities. USC was not compliant in the family of Reggie Bush’s activities, yet was banned from a bowl for as long as Penn State was (Penn State was handed down a 2 year ban but it was overturned after 2 years).
LikeLike