Punishment For The Penn State Football Program
Debate Rounds (3)
The team's current roster should have a shot at competing for a championship just like everyone else and the program should get their scholarships back.
Most of all, that fine is a down right disgrace to the college football and the NCAA leaders should be ashamed of themselves.
Let's look at the other sanctions that have been placed on teams for breaking rules. Ohio State received a one year BCS Bowl BAN for exchanging rings, jerseys, and other sports paraphenaelia for only fourteen thousand dollars. Southern Methodist University's team was completely CANCELLED for one season because of allegations that officials payed off one of their players, leaving their team in shambles. Looking at other sanctions in the NCAA realm, it seems that the NCAA has taken their stance on sex scandals: There shouldn't be any.
And why should there not be any sex scandals on NCAA ground? My opponent would have you believe that the program is "wrong" because the students did not have anything to do with the Penn-State scandal. However, Pennsylvania State had hidden the child abuse for a decade. How do you respond to a decade's worth of child abuse in a program which children actually look up to? You would think that the school had discovered it by now, but Joe Paterno devilishly masked the devious works of Jerry Sandusky. Justice was served. He lost all of his wins within the timeframe he hid Jerry Sandusky from the wolves, and most of all, the Nittany Lions are cowed from the football world, losing their scholarships and BCS Bowl opportunities.
If anything, the Penn-State lions had an incredibly soft penalty. For far less, SMU lost an entire season and were not allowed on prime-time television for five entire years. They're incredibly lucky to still be playing football today, and it would be incredibly foolish to think otherwise.
RESOLVED: The Penn-State punishment is reasonable.
In response to those other cases you talked about, I never heard about them, but now that you've told me, I think those punishments were wrong as well, but this debate isn't about those.
On the subject of the "current generation", the only students who feel any sort of punishment from this sentencing would be the actual players themselves. This punishment makes itself clear because Penn State loses numerous scholarships from the conduct of their FOOTBALL COACH. This is a football related act and one of heinous proportions, which cannot be ignored by the football community. Some may say that because the police dealt with Sandusky, that Football should NOT protect the remaining children who could be abused by coaches, who have their trust and should be able to feel okay around them when they are actually in danger.
NO ONE is actually being punished in this case, just the football program. No one is being stopped from playing Nittany Lions football, it is now just incredibly hard to compete on a national level for the Lions. That is not a punishment that extends to "the current generation", but is a direct punishment to the FOOTBALL PROGRAM for not watching the children and protecting them from Sandusky.
On the subject of whether this is a football-related punishment, it is not. I concede that it is not a form of football-related punishment as the other examples I had were. HOWEVER, it can be dealt with on a secondary basis as most "secondary" punishments can be dealt with in the NCAA , as they are tailored specifically to the school's transgression. One of such moral
The opposition has not provided any proof as to why the punishment is NOT justified. All his hokum revolves around the "current generation" who is not being punished. At all.
The Resolution is Affirmed: The Penn-State punishment is reasonable.
aresrat forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.