Innocent But Proven Guilty

The revelations of the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State for its covering up of Jerry Sandusky's child molestation during his tenure there sparked widespread debate in the sports world. Typically, we see college teams penalized for allowing boosters (Miami), turning a blind eye while players sell their merchandise for other goods (Ohio State) and improper use of scholarship funds (USC). Never in the existence of the NCAA and its bylaws have we seen a team penalized for such an action that deviates so markedly from the field of play. That is not to say that these penalties were necessarily unwarranted or unjust. In fact, most onlookers would tend to agree that Penn State got what it deserved for harboring such a vicious monster in Jerry Sandusky and looking the other way while he ruined the lives of countless children.
But the penalties do raise a remarkably important debate. Where do we draw the line in terms of penalties from the NCAA and society in general? Given that this was the first crime of its kind that we've seen in college sports, it necessitates extenuating circumstances. Thus was the reason for NCAA President Mark Emmert acting so swiftly in deciding penalties for the Penn State football program after the conviction of Sandusky. Penn State willfully accepted each and every one of the sanctions against them and did not argue any of their points. While the same cannot be said for the beleaguered Paterno family, Penn State understood the wrongs that it had committed and allowed the NCAA to lay down the law.
Just to recap, the penalties, severe as they are, include a 4 year ban on bowl and championship games, a loss of 20 scholarships per year (85 to 65), a $60 million fine (about half of the program's overall revenue per year) and the vacation of ALL wins by the program dating back to 1998. In addition, all players are free to transfer to alternate football programs throughout the country without any penalty. These penalties do seem to be more severe (on the surface at least) compared to the so called "death penalty" that the NCAA is also equipped with. The "death penalty", thought to be the most severe and crushing penalty that a college team may receive includes a 2 year suspension of the school's specific sports program. In other words, had Penn State received this "death penalty", they would be forced to suspend all college football activity for a minimum of 2 years. Now contrast the death penalty with the sanctions that Penn State received. Which seems worse? Clearly, the penalties Mike Emmert decided on are remarkably harsher and more substantial and have a deeper and longer impact on the program and the school at large.
Fair as the penalties may appear, there is just cause to argue that they may be unwarranted. Consider head coach Bill O'Brien, his staff, and the players on his roster. Not one of them have any connection to the days of Paterno and Sandusky. Not one of them witnessed any of the crimes committed by Sandusky and more importantly, not one of them committed a crime. All remnants of the ugliness surrounding Sandusky are far removed from Penn State and its football program. In essence, the school has tried to dissociate any connections or links it may have had by getting rid of all people involved in the scandal. By moving in this direction, the school has attempted to repaint its previously tattered image by introducing a new and polished version of its athletics department and its university at large.
But here raises the important question that Emmert and the NCAA will struggle to answer. How do we properly punish the Penn State program for its coverup while also allowing for some room to breath? Granted, we know that a penalty must be handed down. And given the severity of the crime committed, the penalty must be severe. But consider the football futures of the players who bear no responsibility for these crimes. While it's nice and great that they're allowed to transfer, there's no guarantee that they can transfer. Just because they're coming from Penn State does not instantly mean that D-1 schools will be chomping at the bit for their football services. Consider the players on scholarship. Transferring schools or programs could mean loss of scholarship and could also lead to an inability to afford the pleasures of being able to play for a noted college football program. We know that the previous staff deserve blame. But do the current players deserve blame too? I understand hitting them where it hurts most. Their pockets. But denying innocent and talented athletes a chance to live out the full college football experience? That part does not seem right.
Don't get me wrong. Penn State football will recover. But when? Clearly the next 4 years will be marked with hardship. Will O'Brien be able to convince recruits to come in despite no clear objective for their future? And current players? Sure they'll still be able to showcase their talents to NFL teams and play in front of thousands of fans every week but any player currently on the team will never get to experience the benefits of a bowl game, the honor of playing in a league championship and the ability to declare themselves national champions. Ever. If you were a recruit from 1, 2, 3 or 4 years ago being looked at by Penn State and its scouts, would you ever consider their program given their penalties? I guarantee that recruits would choose to look elsewhere. Let's just make one thing clear. I applaud Mike Emmert and his ability to act swiftly in punishing the actions of Penn State. I agree (mostly) with the sanctions he extended to Penn State. The financial penalties do fit the crime as the lost revenue will be spread to organizations that benefit children and protect them against sexual predators like Jerry Sandusky. But the penalties that directly affect the players? Let's take a step back on that one if we can. If a man killed another man and was prosecuted for it, would you then also prosecute the aggressor's kin years later? So to is the issue facing Emmert and the NCAA. Do we punish the direct kin of Penn State who came after the fact in regards to Jerry Sandusky's crimes? Using the previous example, most if not all people would probably give a resounding "no" as their response. So why are we punishing the future kin of Penn State by not allowing its football program to essentially function as a normal team for  at least the next 4 years? Clearly there is no easy way to imagine a proper penalty for the program that keeps the current players safe while also penalizing the past. Does the penalty fit the crime? Sure. But does the penalty fit all those who are affected by the sanctions? That answer is not so clear.
Nevertheless, the penalties are already set in stone and accepted so there is no reversing the NCAA's decision against Penn State. My message to Emmert and the NCAA is simply this: Keep in mind the innocent lives you are impacting with this decision. Penalize but penalize correctly. And don't let the innocent be proven guilty. Not without a fair trial.