Should Iowa Forfeit The Penn State Game This Year?

So you want to lose millions of dollars in revenue and take a loss?
You sir are an idiot.

Isn't that the same implied reason Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz decided to cover up Sandusky's crime?

I'm not saying I want to lose money or take a loss. But does a University at some point have a moral obligation to make certain values more important than money and wins? At what point are teams that play PSU somewhat complicit with promoting the culture that enabled Sandusky's crimes to continue for so long?

Also, if PSU were to forfeit this season, or possibly any future seasons, Iowa is still going to be punished for their crimes, by having to either not play a game, or have to redo the schedule. (Discounting the years we aren't scheduled to play them.)
 
Last edited:
So you want to lose millions of dollars in revenue and take a loss?You sir are an idiot.
Isn't that the same implied reason Spanier, Paterno, Curley, and Schultz decided to cover up Sandusky's crime? I'm not saying I want to lose money or take a loss. But does a University at some point have a moral obligation to make certain values more important than money and wins? At what point are teams that play PSU somewhat complicit with promoting the culture that enabled Sandusky's crimes to continue for so long? Also, if PSU were to forfeit this season, or possibly any future seasons, Iowa is still going to be punished for their crimes, by having to either not play a game, or have to redo the schedule. (Discounting the years we aren't scheduled to play them.)

Just because you have long thought out responses doesn't make you or your responses less idiotic.
 
HA HA HA!!

Oh Wow!

I know, it sounds like pie-in-the-sky idealism.

I'm not a pie-in-the-sky idealist. Money is important to a University and an athletic department. As a Hawkeye fan, I know money gives us competitive advantage on the field because we can hire better coaches and have better facilities, and have more attractive facilities that draw in fans. As a Hawk fan, I want our athletic department rolling in dough.

But you have to draw some lines somewhere, and say that some things are more important than the revenue streams from one football game. Taking a stand against child rape, and against an institution that protected a child rapist to maintain a competitive advantage on the football field seems like a good place to draw the line.

The Athletic Department gets a federal tax exemption for most of their income streams because of it's non-profit status. On a broader policy level, if we are going to say that money trumps even the most cherished values of an institution, then there is no difference between a non-profit institution and one that exists for profit. If there is not difference, then we should also probably reconsider why they get the advantage of not having to pay taxes. (I know that's a tangent, and I'm not saying an athletic department should give up its tax exempt status, nor do I want that, but it's something to keep in mind.)
 
Last edited:
I don't think anything that drastic should be done for the 2012 season.

First, it would cost Iowa a home game and a (potential) victory.

Second, there is no reason for Iowa to rush to judgment in this situation before they allow others who have more relevant power to come to their judgements. Those organizations (DOJ, NCAA, DOE, B1G) will certainly take several more months, if not years, to come to any sort of consensus as to how to punish PSU.

Finally, the whole scandal is about people assuming power when the power shouldn't have been theirs. I don't think Iowa addresses that problem well by usurping the power of the DOJ, DOE, NCAA, and B1G. They would be sending the continued message that usurping the power of those that should have it appropriate when you think that you as an individual have a better understanding of right and wrong that the authorities at hand. That is the absolute wrong message at this time.
 
But you have to draw some lines somewhere, and say that some things are more important than the revenue streams from one football game. Taking a stand against child rape, and against an institution that protected a child rapist to maintain a competitive advantage on the football field seems like a good place to draw the line.

So take a stand against this horrible crime and the people who allowed it to happen by....punishing yourself?



Yeah, that'll show 'em.
 
Second, there is no reason for Iowa to rush to judgment in this situation before they allow others who have more relevant power to come to their judgements. Those organizations (DOJ, NCAA, DOE, B1G) will certainly take several more months, if not years, to come to any sort of consensus as to how to punish PSU.

Finally, the whole scandal is about people assuming power when the power shouldn't have been theirs. I don't think Iowa addresses that problem well by usurping the power of the DOJ, DOE, NCAA, and B1G. They would be sending the continued message that usurping the power of those that should have it appropriate when you think that you as an individual have a better understanding of right and wrong that the authorities at hand. That is the absolute wrong message at this time.

Good points.
 
a better solution would be to donate a bunch of proceeds from the game to children's charities that help with dealing with these types of problems. instead of forfeiting the game and money wouldnt it be a much higher road to give the money to those that could use it.
 
a better solution would be to donate a bunch of proceeds from the game to children's charities that help with dealing with these types of problems. instead of forfeiting the game and money wouldnt it be a much higher road to give the money to those that could use it.

If someone like you wants to donate the lost revenue we can talk about it. Also it is our only home game in October
 
You at least were thinking outside of the box. No problem with that, the full impact just wasn't fully thought out. Jumper and Foval seem more in line with their thought process at this time.
 
It's an interesting idea. I am fully aware of the chaos that forfeiting a game would cause.

My question is, is it worth it? I think it might be - and it's a conversation worth having.

Jumper and Foval have some good points for why it would be a bad idea. I don't think that saying we would lose money or a game is a particularly compelling reason not to cancel the game, given that money and winning seem to be the driving motivations for covering up this crime to begin with and is inconsistent with purpose of the athletic department as a non-profit amateur sports organization.

I think the University would build a considerable amount of good will around the country if we did forfeit a game/refuse to play. It would be a story covered and followed by more than just sports fan.

It certainly would spark a lot of debate, which I think is healthy for the game of college football, and to refocus on the priorities of a university.
 
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.
The funny thing about questions like these is that they fail to recognize that Iowa, along with other like schools, IS the Big Ten and NCAA. When you talk like we should do something if the Big Ten and NCAA don' t, what makes you think those institutions aren't already doing what we want them to do in this regard?

I guess you think an institution like Iowa is above taking a profit from an entity that is responsible for harming others. Of course, Iowa makes a lot of money by allowing credit card advertisements on campus when credit card debt is a huge problem in this country and they just signed a deal to take averting revenue from Anheuser Busch while alcohol is responsible for a huge number of deaths and injuries every year in car accidents.

It certainly isn't a perfect comparison, but Iowa takes money when it can to further its financial goals.
 
Unless appropriate penalties are levied to force a change in the culture at PSU, I will not attend another sporting event in which that school participates. I just can't stomach being complicit in this sordid affair.

But that is what my moral compass dictates. Everyone else needs to decide what is right for them.

What I would do is pay for a ticket to the game, not sell the seat, tailgate and then watch the game in IC.
 
The funny thing about questions like these is that they fail to recognize that Iowa, along with other like schools, IS the Big Ten and NCAA. When you talk like we should do something if the Big Ten and NCAA don' t, what makes you think those institutions aren't already doing what we want them to do in this regard?

I guess you think an institution like Iowa is above taking a profit from an entity that is responsible for harming others. Of course, Iowa makes a lot of money by allowing credit card advertisements on campus when credit card debt is a huge problem in this country and they just signed a deal to take averting revenue from Anheuser Busch while alcohol is responsible for a huge number of deaths and injuries every year in car accidents.

It certainly isn't a perfect comparison, but Iowa takes money when it can to further its financial goals.

This is a good point - the U of Iowa is indeed part of the Big10 and can influence those decisions. My assumptions were that if the NCAA or Big10 can't do anything, one reason might be because there is some technical reason under the NCAA's rules that wouldn't allow them to give the death penalty to a program under the rules as they now exist, not because they lack the will or fortitude to do so. (IE: PSU cannot not be given the death penalty because it is not a repeat offender, etc.)

So if there is a technical reason why the NCAA or Big10 couldn't punish them, then an individual school probably still might be able to refuse to play Penn State. If enough schools make this individual decision, it could have the same effect as a blanket NCAA administered penalty.
 
I'm going to forfeit my attendance at the Bud Billiken Day parade.
WTF is a "billiken" anyway?? Is it like a bumpkin?
 
I'm going to forfeit my attendance at the Bud Billiken Day parade.
WTF is a "billiken" anyway?? Is it like a bumpkin?

billiken_chaifetz_175.jpg


billiken06_200.jpg
 

Latest posts

Top