ccrunner609;1231578 wrote:I cant believe the $60 mil. What a money grab. NCAA are pigs

Would $60M be enough if it were your kid?

dlazz;1231640 wrote:Name one

Scroll down this page and you'll find more than one poster who thinks the vacation of any wins is not warranted. I only said that the wins pre-2001 shouldn't have been removed.

http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?35432-Should-Penn-State-get-the-death-penalty/page10

The $60 million is probably the most just part of the entire ruling. That is the right thing to do (IF the NCAA actually ensures that money goes to NOTHING but programs and organizations directly related to victims of child sexual abuse).

reclegend22;1231645 wrote:Scroll down this page and you'll find more than one poster who thinks the vacation of any wins is not warranted. I only said that the wins pre-2001 shouldn't have been removed.

http://www.ohiochatter.com/forum/showthread.php?35432-Should-Penn-State-get-the-death-penalty/page10

They didn't explain their cases. The vacating of wins is "nothing" in my opinion. It doesn't hurt them in the future, only in the past.

Personally I think the vacating of wins is one of the most meaningless penalties. There is no real impact to it as people who watched the games still know who won. The only thing it changes is the record books, but those are just numbers.

Fly4Fun;1231652 wrote:Personally I think the vacating of wins is one of the most meaningless penalties. There is no real impact to it as people who watched the games still know who won. The only thing it changes is the record books, but those are just numbers.

You obviously didn't hear the reaction of the students. All they care about is a bowl ban and the vacating of wins.

This is the only time I find vacating wins significant. It takes someone that covered up child molestation out of the record books, and I'm all for that. Though I still don't believe the NCAA should've intervened.

wildcats20;1231653 wrote:You obviously didn't hear the reaction of the students. All they care about is a bowl ban and the vacating of wins.

I believe I said "personally" indicating my own opinion. Not sure what a student reaction has to do with my opinion.

With regards to the reaction of students, I can understand caring about a bowl ban as that directly changes their college experience a bit. Sometimes people go to one college over another to be a part of the campus life which often includes sports. I think the response to the vacating of wins is just a result of reactive devaluation and that ultimately they will find out they don't care. Come bowl season they (students) won't be talking about the vacating of wins on the record books but rather the state of their team and no bowl opportunities.

But they might still care, might just be a difference of opinion.

Fly4Fun;1231652 wrote:Personally I think the vacating of wins is one of the most meaningless penalties. There is no real impact to it as people who watched the games still know who won. The only thing it changes is the record books, but those are just numbers.

Typically I would agree with you. But in this case, record books change making it more meaningful. Joe Paterno will no longer be listed as the Division 1 winning-est coach.

SnotBubbles;1231662 wrote:Typically I would agree with you. But in this case, record books change making it more meaningful. Joe Paterno will no longer be listed as the Division 1 winning-est coach.

He wasn't in the first place.

Fly4Fun;1231652 wrote:Personally I think the vacating of wins is one of the most meaningless penalties. There is no real impact to it as people who watched the games still know who won. The only thing it changes is the record books, but those are just numbers.

wildcats20;1231653 wrote:You obviously didn't hear the reaction of the students. All they care about is a bowl ban and the vacating of wins.

I think this is a situation where, unlike the norm, vacating wins does have actual meaning for the sole reason that doing so removes Paterno from the top spot and puts Bowden back there. I think people take vacating wins a lot more seriously when it has an effect on legacy/career numbers like all-time wins.

SnotBubbles;1231662 wrote:Typically I would agree with you. But in this case, record books change making it more meaningful. Joe Paterno will no longer be listed as the Division 1 winning-est coach.

Heretic;1231666 wrote:I think this is a situation where, unlike the norm, vacating wins does have actual meaning for the sole reason that doing so removes Paterno from the top spot and puts Bowden back there. I think people take vacating wins a lot more seriously when it has an effect on legacy/career numbers like all-time wins.

Both of you made a good point. I am just a bit jaded by the whole Bowden vs. Paterno thing as at this point I think both sacrificed so much of their integrity to try to reach the record that it is meaningless. Even before both of their respective incidents came to light (Paterno's being a lot worse obviously), I think both stayed on too long.

Paterno moves from 409 wins to 298, dropping him from first to 12th on the winningest NCAA football coach list. Penn State also will have six bowl wins and two conference championships erased. ..........:thumbup::thumbup:

dontcare;1231675 wrote:Paterno moves from 409 wins to 298, dropping him from first to 12th on the winningest NCAA football coach list. Penn State also will have six bowl wins and two conference championships erased. ..........:thumbup::thumbup:

It drops him from 2nd to 12th

Pretty crazy when you think about it....

@BaldSteve1972: @Dejan_Kovacevic In 2010 Penn State played Ohio State in a game which both schools have now vacated.

killer_ewok;1231692 wrote:Pretty crazy when you think about it....

@BaldSteve1972: @Dejan_Kovacevic In 2010 Penn State played Ohio State in a game which both schools have now vacated.

I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say this is false.

I'm under the impression that both schools only vacated wins. And when a win is vacated, the other team doesn't get the win attributed to them, there just is no winner. So technically only OSU vacated the win in that game, PSU didn't have to vacate anything as they were the loser anyways.

Or am I wrong and you vacate the game as a whole, whether win or lose?

dontcare;1231675 wrote:Paterno moves from 409 wins to 298, dropping him from first to 12th on the winningest NCAA football coach list. Penn State also will have six bowl wins and two conference championships erased. ..........:thumbup::thumbup:

LJ;1231676 wrote:It drops him from 2nd to 12th

John Gagliardi

Fly4Fun;1231695 wrote:I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say this is false.

I'm under the impression that both schools only vacated wins. And when a win is vacated, the other team doesn't get the win attributed to them, there just is no winner. So technically only OSU vacated the win in that game, PSU didn't have to vacate anything as they were the loser anyways.

Or am I wrong and you vacate the game as a whole, whether win or lose?

Honestly not sure. Just saw that posted a few times on Twitter and thought that was crazy.

LOL.... the NCAA Sandusky'd Penn State.

The only other way I have seen records represented when a whole season is vacated is a mark of 0-1 representing the entire season. I am kind of curious now how it is official treated. Whether a team when vacating a season official goes 0-1 on the season, or they just lose their W's and keep the L's from that season.

For example:

A team goes 6-6 and has to vacate the entire season.

Are they officially 0-1 or 0-6?

Imagine if a team was 0-12 for a season, and for some reason had to vacate it (if they were cheating they should have cheated better).

Would that team officially be 0-1 or 0-12.

I personally think a team (in my hypos or any team) should have to vacate the W's but keep the L's. It seems like more of a punishment at least.

Wins are vacated, and losses stand as is, I believe. So their record would be 0-(number of actual losses) for each season.

Fly4Fun;1231695 wrote:I'm not sure, but I'm inclined to say this is false.

I'm under the impression that both schools only vacated wins. And when a win is vacated, the other team doesn't get the win attributed to them, there just is no winner. So technically only OSU vacated the win in that game, PSU didn't have to vacate anything as they were the loser anyways.

Or am I wrong and you vacate the game as a whole, whether win or lose?

I believe you're right here. A vacated game has a loser, but no winner. OU got torched by OSU in 2010 and it still counts as a loss in the standings.

The $60m is going to an endowment for "external programs preventing child sexual abuse or assisting victims and may not be used to fund such programs at the university

."

Thank you for the info, I did not know that.

$60 million fine?...payable to who? The victims families? This is just more NCAA horse shit. If it wants to forfeit wins or ban the people who were associated with the program for 5 years/show cause, that is within it's jurisdiction.(barely). But fining the people of Pennslyvania is absurd ...although not unexpected from an organization that continues to usurp power faster than the federal governmnet.

And the worst part about it, is that people suck this stuff up like the NCAA is this all powerful, benign institution.

HitsRus;1231765 wrote:$60 million fine?...payable to who? The victims families? This is just more NCAA horse ****. If it wants to forfeit wins or ban the people who were associated with the program for 5 years/show cause, that is within it's jurisdiction.(barely). But fining the people of Pennslyvania is absurd ...although not unexpected from an organization that continues to usurp power faster than the federal governmnet.

And the worst part about it, is that people suck this stuff up like the NCAA is this all powerful, benign institution.

60 mil won't even be close to what they pay out to victims.