Penn State Fall-Out

The sanctions and penalties applied to Penn State just came out. I completely understand the $60 million penalty, specifically for use to fund anti-molestation and child protection services external to the college. I fully support the four-year Bowl ban; the people involved (and other college personnel at other colleges) need to know that covering up something this heinous is not proper behavior. I even understand the forfeiture of scholarships, as a lack of scholarships greatly impacts their ability to recruit and put out an excellent product, although all that really does is hurt the ability of some 20 student athletes that otherwise could have gone to college from going.

What I don't get is the vacating of all wins from 1998-2011. There were around a dozen coaches each year, each teaching the nearly 100 student athletes how to play football, how to be good athletes, and how to win games. How does one man molesting children (and, apparently, none of those he coached) and other men covering up for him in any way relate to the conduct and success of the students on the field? I agree that there is no more heinous action than child abuse in any form, but the players who worked out, practiced, and played in those game had nothing to do with it -- why would taking away their efforts be somehow an appropriate punishment for Sandusky (in jail, probably for life), Paterno (fired, shamed, and passed away), or the heads of the school (fired and likely won't be able to work in that environment ever again)?

When OJ Simpson was accused of, and found responsible for (in civil court), the deaths of Nicole Simpson Brown and Ron Goldman, there were some who wanted to take away his football accolades (Heisman Trophy, Hall of Fame, rushing titles, etc.). In the end, people rightly agreed that his accomplishments on the field were not negated by something he did years later and off the field.

When it is a possible one-to-one relationship, I can understand vacating wins and accolades. For example:

• Peter Rose betting on his sport and his team, which may have affected the outcome of games, or
• People taking steroids and getting phenomenal results that affected wins/losses by an individual or a team (Tour de France victories achieved while using PEDs, the many baseball players convicted of steroid use, Olympic athletes who used PEDs, etc.).

Unless someone has information I haven't found in the media about this case, in no way does Sandusky molesting children during his off hours affect the ability of the team to win games on the field. Is it that his coaching ability was so incredible that the team simply could not have won those games without it so, because Sandusky should have been fired and imprisoned long ago for these actions, the entire team could not have won any of those games without him? Even if that is true (he was, reputedly, a very good defensive coordinator), Sandusky retired in 1999, so the vast majority (all but two seasons) of those vacated wins was without him as a coach.

The other harsh penalties are all but killing the football program at PSU. Penn State's athletics will have trouble recovering from these sanctions. And rightly so. I simply do not see or understand the reasoning behind the penalty forcing the school to vacate wins. This makes no sense to me, and simply seems to punish the student athletes, the coaches, the boosters, the many people who were adjunct to the football program (cheerleaders, band, students who worked the concessions, etc.) and does not address the people responsible for, or negligent for, the child molestation. This penalty only harms innocents; sort of like Sandusky himself.