BillikenHawkeye
Active Member
I think Jon makes a compelling argument for why the PSU football program should be suspended for a couple years, given what we learned in the Freeh report that was released last week.
If PSU decides not to suspend the program, or the NCAA or Big10 Conference fails to suspend the PSU football program for a period of time, as some have proposed, perhaps schools that are scheduled to play Penn State, like Iowa, should independently decline to play PSU. A school like Iowa could administer its own "mini" death penalty, even if the NCAA has valid reasons for not imposing their own, like the other Big10 schools did to Iowa in the 1930s after our slush fund scandal.
Would forfeiting a game be an extreme response? Absolutely. But this is not an ordinary football scandal, as the Freeh report makes very clear.
Forfeiting the Penn State game would send a powerful message about the commitment of the University to its core values. Somethings are bigger than football, and refusing to play Penn State this year would confirm Iowa's commitment to this proposition.
I realize this would be a complicated decision. Iowa would possibly have to forfeit the revenue from that game, there are TV contracts, ticket issues, and scores of other contracts that would have to be reconciled if the game was not played. But sometimes an institution has to have the courage to make clear moral statements, and not let the complications get in the way.
Alternatively, perhaps another Big10 could also forfeit their game against Penn State and play Iowa as a replacement. Wisconsin, for example, is scheduled to play at Penn State this year. Perhaps they could play at Iowa instead. Obviously this would be difficult to schedule, but it could replace the lost revenue if a game had to be played.
I don't necessarily think Penn State should be kicked out of the Big Ten, at least not yet, nor do I think PSU's football program should be terminated or suspended for 14 years as some have suggested. That seems overly harsh and punitive to innocent parties, like a college sports version of the Treaty of Versailles. We should avoid that.
The purpose of suspending the PSU football program, or refusing to play them for a number of years, should be to send a clear moral message, to refocus priorities and put football in its proper context, and to let the stench of the past go away and to start anew.
This scandal arose in the football department, and the remedies should be directed toward the football program. Football is not the only sport at PSU, although it is of course the biggest. The other programs should not be punished for the crimes of another sport. Let PSU keep most of their share of the Big10 revenues - perhaps with some reduction for money that would have been allocated to the football program.
Iowa, and other Big 10 schools do not need the NCAA or the Big10 Conference to suspend the PSU program if they act independently. Forfeiting this year's football game would be a clear way to send a strong moral message.
If PSU decides not to suspend the program, or the NCAA or Big10 Conference fails to suspend the PSU football program for a period of time, as some have proposed, perhaps schools that are scheduled to play Penn State, like Iowa, should independently decline to play PSU. A school like Iowa could administer its own "mini" death penalty, even if the NCAA has valid reasons for not imposing their own, like the other Big10 schools did to Iowa in the 1930s after our slush fund scandal.
Would forfeiting a game be an extreme response? Absolutely. But this is not an ordinary football scandal, as the Freeh report makes very clear.
Forfeiting the Penn State game would send a powerful message about the commitment of the University to its core values. Somethings are bigger than football, and refusing to play Penn State this year would confirm Iowa's commitment to this proposition.
I realize this would be a complicated decision. Iowa would possibly have to forfeit the revenue from that game, there are TV contracts, ticket issues, and scores of other contracts that would have to be reconciled if the game was not played. But sometimes an institution has to have the courage to make clear moral statements, and not let the complications get in the way.
Alternatively, perhaps another Big10 could also forfeit their game against Penn State and play Iowa as a replacement. Wisconsin, for example, is scheduled to play at Penn State this year. Perhaps they could play at Iowa instead. Obviously this would be difficult to schedule, but it could replace the lost revenue if a game had to be played.
I don't necessarily think Penn State should be kicked out of the Big Ten, at least not yet, nor do I think PSU's football program should be terminated or suspended for 14 years as some have suggested. That seems overly harsh and punitive to innocent parties, like a college sports version of the Treaty of Versailles. We should avoid that.
The purpose of suspending the PSU football program, or refusing to play them for a number of years, should be to send a clear moral message, to refocus priorities and put football in its proper context, and to let the stench of the past go away and to start anew.
This scandal arose in the football department, and the remedies should be directed toward the football program. Football is not the only sport at PSU, although it is of course the biggest. The other programs should not be punished for the crimes of another sport. Let PSU keep most of their share of the Big10 revenues - perhaps with some reduction for money that would have been allocated to the football program.
Iowa, and other Big 10 schools do not need the NCAA or the Big10 Conference to suspend the PSU program if they act independently. Forfeiting this year's football game would be a clear way to send a strong moral message.
Last edited:
