The Penn State Scandal and Why the Death Penalty is Too Much

With no actualy sports being played, today has been a day dominated by the release of the Freeh Report, the government issued investigation on the Penn State scandal and supposed coverup. I have not, and probably will not, read the entire report, but I have enjoyed listening to radio host's and fans' reactions to the entire incident and how Penn State should be punished, if they should be punished, by the NCAA.

There have been people wanting as little as nothing and as much as 47 years of no football, equal to Jerry Sandusky's prison sentence. Those were merely outliers and most of the reaction was a little more sensible. The term that still came up more often than it should have was "death penalty."

The NCAA's version of the death penalty is completely banning a school from a sport for a given time period. This has only happened once. Southern Methodist University had their 1987 and 1988 football seasons cancelled when it was found that they had been generously paying their players for about a decade. The loss of those two seasons nearly destroyed the football program altogether and they never played in another bowl game until 2009.

This punishment may be exactly would the brass at Penn State deserve for failing to do their civic duty by turning Sandusky in 13 years ago, but how would that be fair to the current Penn State team, who had absolutely nothing to do with the crimes committed or the subsequent coverup? They would lose an entire football season or be forced to transfer to another school. Both could potentially derail any future in football for those players. Players who had no involvement in the scandal.

Then you have to think of the fans. Penn State has an extremely loyal fan base, over 100,000 of which pack Beaver Stadium every football Saturday. How is is fair to them to take away something they love for a scandal that they had no involvement in? College football fans are addicts to their teams, taking away their addiction cold turkey can really throw a cog in their autumn lifestyle.

Then there is the Big Ten to consider. How much money would the conference and each member school lose from not having Penn State for a couple years? Probably more than they want to admit. Again, there are eleven institutions that played no part in any of this.

So, clearly, the death penalty drags in a bunch of innocent souls, making that not an option. If the NCAA were to levy any penalty on Penn State, I suggest two things. The first would be a fairly standard NCAA punishment, the loss of available scholarships. This wouldn't affect the current roster. It would damage the program, but not beyond the point of repair.

The second would be stiff fines in the form of a donation to some kind of children's charity. And I am not talking some feel good few thousand dollar gratuity, but millions of dollars in tribute to the very group of people the university allowed to be hurt by their inaction. Football is a sport responsible for bringing in large sums of money to any college, so why not essentially disable the primary benefit of football without actually axing the entire program? The players get to keep playing, the fans get to keep watching, and the type of people who were most damaged by the entire scandal get a monetary benefit.

We also must not forget that Penn State, while clearly breaking all kinds of federal law, has not actually violated any NCAA regulations. Nobody will object to the NCAA stepping in and throwing their sanctions on, but we also have to remember that the long arm of federal law can still come down on the university and the individuals involved too. 

There is no doubt that Penn State has been the shame of college football lately and they surely deserve to take the blame and fall for everything they have done (or, rather, not done). The death penalty is too harsh on the current roster and the fans, but if you take a large chunk of Penn State's pocket book away, it might get the point across to other schools that this sort of thing is taken seriously and nobody is too important to be punished.

How I Learned To Stop Worrying And Love The All-Star Game

Every July, Major League Baseball likes to take it's best and/or most popular players, throw them on the same field, and play a baseball game. Much is always made about the selection process of the teams and the fact that an exhibition game counts for something very real. Surely, there is no shortage of these types of blog posts and collumns throughout the internet every year. No doubt, sportswriters and fans alike love to complain about anything, even a game that is supposed to be for fun.

The first thing that people love to take off and run with their complaints is how the fans select each team's starting lineups, and how these aren't always the best players in each league. Defeating this argument is pretty simple. The All-Star Game is an event for the fans, so why not allow the fans to pick who they want to see play? Sure, it turns into a popularity contest and half the team is filled with Yankees and Red Sox players, but those are the guys that the fans want to see. So put them on the field.

Besides, more often than not, the game isn't decided while the starters are in the game (last night's 8-0 laugher is really the exception). The game gets decided in the late innings, when it's either players that got in based on the merits of their season, or because they were the only player on their team worthy of being considered an all-star. The starters are long since gone, the popular players have been replaced for those more deserving to determine who has home field advantage in the World Series.

Now, of course I feel that it is silly to decide who has a slight advantage in the World Series based on the results of an exhibition game featuring many, many players who will never factor into who ends up winning, or even playing for, the title. It should be based on which team had the better record, or at least the alternating between the leagues thing that used to happen. But, how have I learned to accept this as truth and not let it bother me on a random Tuesday night in July?

Simple, I've come to accept Bud Selig and his awful and gimicky decision making process. Nothing he has done has truly improved the game for me, yet nothing he has done has caused me to turn a blind eye to baseball. The All-Star Game counting for something is simply another piece of Bud Selig's goofy narrative, which is entertaining enough for me.

I've given up on complaining about how out of touch Bud is with present day baseball. Every time he flaps his jaw about the state of the game, whether it's expaning the playoffs, instant replay, or the use of the DH in National League parks for interleague play, he is trying to improve baseball, but utterly failing at doing so. And I, personally, find it rather hilarious.

Nothing Bud says or does, short of something absurd like making baseball a full contact sport, can drive me away from the game. Negative popular opinion isn't going to force me to stop celebrating Opening Day like Easter, or the seven games of the World Series like Hanukkah's eight crazy nights. Watching the commish stumble over himself as he tries to market baseball to non-baseball people is simply a sideshow to what really means something to me, which is baseball.

Not to mention that I doubt that having home field advantage has ever truly decided a World Series. Last year might be the only year you can make that argument, but I still think St. Louis would have won the series had four games been played in Arlington. So why should I get all worked up about something I don't feel matters all that much?

So, every year I watch the All-Star Game because it is another baseball game, just one with the best and/or most popular players. I don't look at the big picture of what the game means, I don't care that only one player from my favored Red Sox made it on the American League roster or that my enemy Derek Jeter has been a fixture at shortstop for nearly two decades. It's a baseball game, you're going to watch it anyway if you love baseball as much as I do.

Euro 2012 Review: Spain Wins It All Again

Spain made history yesterday when they became the first nation to win consecutive European Championships, and the first nation to win three major tournaments in a row. This Spanish side is really something special, and later in the post I will examine where they rank among the greatest international runs of all time. First, let's take a look at my predictions from before the tournament.

Group A
Group A, the minor league group of death, was pretty much upside down from how I called it. I expected Russia and the Polish hosts to qualify for the quaters, but Poland failed to win a game and Russia flamed out in somewhat impressive fashion. The Czech Republic were the unexpected group winners, and Greece managed to get in. Both sides lost their quarterfinal matches, as expected.

Group B
I was in total shock when the Netherlands failed to even gain one point during the group stage. It really makes you wonder if their appearance in the World Cup Final two years ago was a fluke. Germany's success (and subsequent semi-final disapointment) was really no shocker. They are one of the best sides in the game, but continue to struggle as the pressure increases. Ronaldo did well to lead the Portuguese to the semis, but it was a questionable decision to have him anchor the penalty shootout, and thus never getting a chance to keep Portugal alive against Spain.

Group C
The undisputed best team in the world surprised nobody, but more on them later. This group finished exactly as I called it.

Group D
England and France stayed true to character by doing well enough to pass the group stage but flame out on the quaters. England even took it to the next level of consistency by losing in penalties when not one, but two, of their better penalty takers (Ashley Young and Ashley Cole) failed from the spot. While not as tragic as the Euro 1996 semi-final, this still ranks up there as another disappointment for English football.

Now, on to Spain. This team is really the cream of the crop in world football. Their "tiki-taka" passing style is fast paced and enjoyable to watch. They may not have the greatest player in the world, but they have a lot of great players who play well as a team.

For a team that was praised for their attacking ability, their defense is really something to behold as well. Despite losing star defender Carlos Puyol early in the tournament, they only conceded one goal. It was in their opener against Italy. This was a first for a European Champion.

Let's compare Spain to some of world football's greatest teams, shall we?

We begin with the little mentioned Hungarian teams of the 1950s. That 1953 team was the first ever to beat England at home, in front of 105,000 at Wembley no less. Although they never won a World Cup, they revolutionized the game in terms of tactical style much like today's Spain is doing. Although the Dutch teams of the 1970s take the credit, it was the Magnificent Magyars that laid the foundations of their Total Football scheme. The 1954 World Cup side took out several of the major powers at the time, including Uruguay and Brazil, before falling in exciting fashion to West Germany in the final.

Often mentioned as one of the best teams ever was the Brazil sides of the 1960s. Rarely has their been a collection of stars on one team. Surely a side with Pele, Carlos Alberto Torres, Jairzinho, Tostão, Gérson, and Rivelino would be considered the best ever and is probably Spain's toughest competition. From 1958-1970, Brazil won three of the four World Cup tournaments, a feat that has never been repeated.

Another revolutionary team that never won a World Cup was the Dutch teams of the 1970s. Feeding off Hungary's primitive Total Football style, the Dutch teams of the 1970s perfected it and made it their own. Their beautiful passing style and allowance for any position to play any role served as the foundations for the so called "tiki-taka" style of play that Spain, FC Barcelona, and, to a lesser extent, Arsenal employ today. They never won the World Cup, but they twice lost to the host in the World Cup Final, and won the 1976 European Championship.

It's no doubt that Spain's major tournament victories take them above the 1950s Hungary teams and the 1970s Dutch squads. I think they still have a bit to go to catch the legendary Brazillians. They have already accomplished something that no other country has done with three consecutive major tournament wins, but Brazil has the long term consistency that Spain simply hasn't had the time to catch yet. An impressive showing at the 2014 World Cup in Brazil will go a long way towards catching the great Pele and company. A championship in 2014 will not only make them better, but serve as a sort of poetic triumph over the one nation that could be considered better.