My Reply to Michael Rosenberg's Why Death Penalty doesn't make sense for Penn St Football

 This is a reply to a opinion piece written by Michael Rosenberg on the Sports Illustrated website. In it he gives five reasons why giving Penn State the Death Penalty doesn't make sense. Here it is http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/writers/michael_rosenberg/07/19/penn-state-death-penalty/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_T12_a2

I disagree with his point so I am writing this as a reply. The way I will do this is by giving a reply to each of his five points.

Point 1. There are only a few people directly responsible.

My Reply: The Freeh report makes it clear that more than four people knew about Sandusky abusing kids. Mike McQueary saw him & the report mentioned a Korean War vet to name a few. It is hard to believe that these stories weren't repeated to other people at some point. Others knew and told no one. While it is clear that the Penn State leadership started the coverup they had help. Yes, witnesses were scared but they still chose not to come forward.

Point 2 This is not the NCAA's job.

My Reply: Since when? The NCAA has always maintain that it's members & it's student-athletes are held to high standard. This is the worst scandal involving a NCAA member ever. The NCAA goes after student-athletes who take money, they have gone after family members of student-athletes. And for the argument that NCAA doesn't deal with crimes, what about it's rules against gambling. The NCAA also does drug testing. The NCAA, it's conference's & it's schools suspend players when that get in trouble with the law.

Point 3. It punishes the wrong people.

My Reply: That is what the NCAA does. Bowl bans, loss of Scholarships, TV bans & probation in general punishes the wrong people, yet the NCAA keeps doing it. USC players who were in middle school at the time, served a Bowl ban due the Reggie Bush penalties. In fact the penalties that it looks like the NCAA will impose on Penn St will affect people who had nothing to do with the Sandusky coverup.

Point 4. It will not accomplish what it is supposed to accomplish.

My Reply: That depends on what you are trying to accomplish. Pro death penalty supporters want to send a message. The worst offense should get the worst punishment. When it comes to rebuilding the culture if the Death penalty for a few years doesn't do it, nothing short of a permanent ban will do it. And when it comes to those angry Penn State fans, it is not fault of the NCAA or the pro death penalty people. It is the fault of the then Penn State leadership & Paterno for covering it up. If they choose to keep supporting Paterno, it is there choice.

Point 5. Precedent.

My Reply: This is worse than SMU. By not giving the death penalty the NCAA is saying that paying players is unacceptable. But covering for child rapist, not so much. What kind of precedent does that set?

If you agree or disagree please comment.