[ArtK78]

jdeegan, on 2012-December-18, 08:21, said:

Here in bigD we have an immensely wise local sports guru who goes by the nom de guerre of Grandpa Urine. His take is that all of the other conferences have at least a few token restrictions on the recruiting and retaining of student athletes. This is why they are inherently better at fielding top level college football squads.

Some examples of rules often ignored:

(1) the student athlete recruit has to be able to read and write.

(2) tenured faculty is not obligated to change the student athlete's grades upon request.

(3) local law enforcement's first phone call must be to a designated university official whenever a student athlete is involved,

(4) sponsors of student athletes must obey certain recruiting rules, and payments to student athletes must be in line with sports community norms.

It is part of the cultural heritage of the South that most of the rules shown above, as well as many others I have not personally witnessed and hence not listed, are often ignored. The reason for all of this is something most Southerners understand in their bones, but it is darn near impossible to explain to outsiders (except, possibly in places like Northern Ireland) why it is a good thing.

For reference, see SMU/death penalty/1987

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2012-December-18, 10:08, said:

For reference, see SMU/death penalty/1987

True, but the revenue then was a small fraction of what it is now. The death penalty would never happen now. Penn State didn't get it. Miami didn't get it. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see it is off the table.

[jjbrr]

billw55, on 2012-December-19, 08:58, said:

True, but the revenue then was a small fraction of what it is now. The death penalty would never happen now. Penn State didn't get it. Miami didn't get it. Doesn't take a crystal ball to see it is off the table.

the punishment pedo state received is worse than the death penalty

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2012-December-19, 09:15, said:

the punishment pedo state received is worse than the death penalty

Disagree. SMU was barred from playing NCAA football for a full year, had all its home games cancelled for a second year, and lost 55 scholarships over 4 years. Penn State was fined a lot of money, had some past accomplishments supposedly negated, and lost 30 scholarships over 5 years. For the most part, they continue to play high-level NCAA football.

[jjbrr]

So you're saying if the death penalty includes subsequent sanctions such as lost scholarships and bowl bans, it's worse than a punishment that includes lost scholarships and bowl bans but no death penalty.

We may have different definitions of success at "high levels" but psu will be irrelevant for at least a decade and hopefully more.

[Bbradley62]

jjbrr, on 2012-December-19, 23:36, said:

So you're saying if the death penalty includes subsequent sanctions such as lost scholarships and bowl bans, it's worse than a punishment that includes lost scholarships and bowl bans but no death penalty.

We may have different definitions of success at "high levels" but psu will be irrelevant for at least a decade and hopefully more.

No, I'm saying that being told "your school cannot play any NCAA football next year" is clearly stronger than being allowed to continue to play.

[jjbrr]

we'll have to disagree then. death penalty would be more severe for a short period of time, but this bowl bans/lost scholarships punishment will continue to affect them for a whole decade and as a result will harm the football program more severely.

the next class of students who will play on a PSU football team with the full 85 scholarships is currently in 4th grade. Perhaps the koolaid is strong enough at psu that they can find sufficient talent to win in a tough conference against opponents with more scholarships and fewer disincentives, but probably not.

Also the death penalty affects other schools besides psu pretty significantly, and that should be considered when weighing the efficacy of the punishments.

[mike777]

jjbrr, on 2012-December-20, 00:22, said:

we'll have to disagree then. death penalty would be more severe for a short period of time, but this bowl bans/lost scholarships punishment will continue to affect them for a whole decade and as a result will harm the football program more severely.

the next class of students who will play on a PSU football team with the full 85 scholarships is currently in 4th grade. Perhaps the koolaid is strong enough at psu that they can find sufficient talent to win in a tough conference against opponents with more scholarships and fewer disincentives, but probably not.

Also the death penalty affects other schools besides psu pretty significantly, and that should be considered when weighing the efficacy of the punishments.

not sure what you are saying
1) death pen. means no football...ok
2) less than death means football...ok...
3) football=many hurt many
4) no football=less hurt


If your vote is football and many more hurt ok.....no one really cares about hurt

[billw55]

PSU's fans are pretty loyal. My guess is that even with extended non-winning, their revenue loss won't be as bad as you probably think. Certainly not as bad as losing two years of home games, especially in their huge stadium. Also they will continue to get the conference shares which are quite high from the Big Ten Network.

As for lost scholarships: if the figures presented by others are correct, this is not such a big deal. 30 lost over 5 years, out of 85? My nickel says they stay in the top half of the conference on average.

[jdeegan]

The Penn State vs. the SMU situation is an apple and oranges comparison. Penn State has a well-established, long-standing top flight football program with more willing sugar daddies than they need (or perhaps that should be in the past tense given the scandal).

SMU, by comparison, had been a second/third tier team that became a johnny come lately first tier team when their sugar daddies became flush with oil money in the late-70's. By 1987 the oil money was gone, and the scandal had made being an SMU sugar daddy no fun at all. No basis for continuing the effort.

[mycroft]

I think the big killers for PSU will be the "No bowl games for 4 years" and the "can be recruited out without a sitout time" restrictions, not necessarily the scholarships (which are just going to narrow the pool of players that can play. There is a big difference between 85 and 55 - 55 basically means that only the players actually dressing can be full ride, no reserve/redshirts). The latter has probably run its course - all the players that were going to take advantage of that have. The "no bowl games" bit will mean that the better current PSU players will have taken the escape provision, and the newer ones will look to other schools, as bowl performance (and just getting there) is rated very highly by the NFL scouts.

[billw55]

mycroft, on 2012-December-20, 12:12, said:

... bowl performance (and just getting there) is rated very highly by the NFL scouts.

I can't imagine why this should be true. Surely scouts evaluate physical stats and skills higher than performance in a single game? Plenty of NFL players come from colleges that don't go to bowls much.

[inquiry]

UPDATE ON SEC BOWL GAMES.... THE point spreads were early ones not ones at game time as I am too lazy to check them again.. this is from earlier post in the thread, and I will update it after games are played... sec teams are in bold.



SEC WINS
Music City Bowl: NC State vs Vanderbilt (-7.5), vanderbilt won 38 to 24, so by 14, easily covering.
Outback Bowl: South Carolina (-7) vs. Michigan, SC won 33 to 28
Capital One Bowl: Nebraska vs Georgia (-12.5), Georgia won 45 to 31

SEC LOSES
Chick Fil-A Bowl: Clemson vs LSU (-7), Clemson won 25 to 24
Gator Bowl: Northwestern vs Mississippi State (-2.5)

STILL TO PLAY
Cotton Bowl: Texas A&M (-6) vs Oklahoma
BBVA Compass Bowl Pitt versus Ole Miss (don't know it)
Sugar Bowl: Florida (-15.5) vs Louisville
BCS Championship Game: Alabama (-9.5) vs Notre Dame

[billw55]

inquiry, on 2012-December-31, 22:20, said:

SEC WINS

Outback Bowl: South Carolina (-7) vs. Michigan, SC won 33 to 28

That looks like an SEC loss to me.

[ArtK78]

billw55, on 2013-January-02, 07:38, said:

That looks like an SEC loss to me.

Michigan beat the spread. So, if you were betting on the game (against the line), Michigan was the winning side. But South Carolina won the game.

[billw55]

ArtK78, on 2013-January-02, 08:55, said:

Michigan beat the spread. So, if you were betting on the game (against the line), Michigan was the winning side. But South Carolina won the game.

Pretty clear he was talking about betting lines.

Although I see now that perhaps wins and losses is just how he was sorting the presentation - not meaning win or loss after the line.

[jjbrr]

lol

[Bbradley62]

If we're talking about whether the SEC is over-rated (at least as measured by bowl performance) there are two different groups doing the rating: the bowl administrators who invite teams to play and the bettors who set the lines.

SEC teams were invited to 7 bowls last year (excluding SEC vs SEC national championships) and 9 this year. SEC went 5-2 last year and 6-3 this year, demonstrating that they were clearly not over-invited.

As for the betting lines, SEC teams covered the spread in 4 of last year's 7 games and in 5 of this year's 9, demonstrating that they were not over-rated by bettors either.

[Thiros]

Well, out of the nine SEC teams bowling, all of them won their games except for LSU, Florida, and Mississippi State, and all year long it was in question how good those teams were anyway. So while the SEC this year was probably slightly overrated, that doesn't mean that it wasn't for real. South Carolina was really the only SEC bowl winner that didn't emphatically prove itself.

[jjbrr]

Thiros, on 2013-January-16, 16:36, said:

Well, out of the nine SEC teams bowling, all of them won their games except for LSU, Florida, and Mississippi State, and all year long it was in question how good those teams were anyway. So while the SEC this year was probably slightly overrated, that doesn't mean that it wasn't for real. South Carolina was really the only SEC bowl winner that didn't emphatically prove itself.

It's not even hyperbole to say ND would not have beaten the SEC's 7th best team, Vandy, given how well Vandy was playing at the end of the season, but yeah, the SEC was probably slightly overrated all season.

It is true none of the SEC schools had to play the Pitt juggernaut in the regular season. Just cupcakes OOC. Tough break for ND.