[Husker] Just an idea for Penn State

[Mike Jaixen]

Shutting down Penn State football for the 2012 season has lasting effects across college football, including here in Nebraska.  Nebraska has likely sold about 81,000 tickets (assuming PSU's allotment is already sold) for this game, so a forfeit does have a severe impact on Nebraska...and 4 other schools, in all likelihood.  Probably a $4-$5 million hit to the athletic department, and probably another $1 million to the Lincoln economy. And could the B1G championship game still be played if two of the six East divisions (and the two of the bigger names, I might add) aren't available to play?

Announcing a 2013 shutdown now would allow the B1G to adjust the schedule and mitigate the situation...though would that force a cessation of the Big Ten championship game as well?  

Forfeits simply won't work in today's poll-driven society.  For sake of argument, what if Nebraska wins their other 11 games.  Sure, they'd be 12-0...but everyone would report it as 12*-0.  Even if they are 8-3 in the other games, that would be reported as 9*-3.

As a matter of disclosure, I was in favor of cancelling the 2011 game, but that was more because I doubted the game could have been played at that time with all of the uproar and in the wake of the campus reaction.
 
Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com


________________________________
 From: David Strong <gobigredlist at gmail.com>
To: husker at tssi.com 
Sent: Friday, July 20, 2012 11:15 AM
Subject: [Husker] Just an idea for Penn State
 
Mark Emmert has made it pretty clear the NCAA is going to bring the hammer
to Penn State.  Sanctions will be heavy, if not the death penalty.  See
below:  (this is called a reference link so that others can read the
article for themselves.  If anyone ever asks you for one, don't be bothered
by it...it's very common practice and not personal.)

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/53285/ncaa-president-mulling-psu-penalties

What if the PS board of trustees made the decision on their own to put the
football program in abeyance for a year?  There may be some benefits from
doing this:

1. They may be able to head off the NCAA.  If you do it yourself, rather
than have the NCAA do it to you, you restore some good will to the
University, and you have more control of the phase-out and phase-in.
2. They may be able to head off more lingering penalties from the NCAA.
You can claim that you have given yourself the ultimate penalty and
therefore no need to pile on with loss of scholies, TV, and post-season.
3. If they can pull it off for just one year, they *may* be able to keep
the staff and processes going without too much interruption.
4. After the year, you "re-launch" a new and improved football program.
New safeguards, standards, culture. Tweak the unis a little bit to show a
difference between the old way of doing things and the new.
5. Big 10 can treat all PS games as forfeits and put a win in in the column
of everyone who played them. Keeps it very easy to manage for one year.  Of
course, may be some push back from those schools w/o PS on the schedule,
but you could probably get them in line for the sake of the conference.

Some keys:
1. Try to get the NCAA to buy-in to letting all players who stay keep the
year of eligibility
2. Allow the school to continue to recruit during the off year.

I'm sure there are a ton of holes in this that I haven't thought of, but on
a lot of levels it could work.  I think a lot of people want to see the
Penn State program punished, but not crippled for many years.  This would
hurt no doubt, but maybe not as bad as other longer term penalties or a
NCAA imposed dp.

Dave
_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker