It should come to no surprise to those who know me well that I will not be attending Penn State because of my love of sports. Indeed, my choice of graduate program is based on academic ranking, productivity in research and of course, funding. Don’t get me wrong, I enjoy the occasional game of volleyball and Quidditch, but on the whole, sports just aren’t my thing. With this in mind, my staunch defense of the Penn State football program makes very little sense on the surface. Nevertheless, I do defend the program and I oppose the NCAA’s ‘Death Penalty.’
My defense is based on one central idea: suspending the football program extends the punishment to a large number of innocents most of whom are far removed from the actions of Jerry Sandusky and the school administrators who failed to do their job. After analyzing this idea, it should become clear that the ‘Death Penalty’ may be a well intended yet largely flawed punishment that should be replaced with a targeted punishment limited to those at fault.
In the case of Penn State, the Death Penalty inevitably punishes those who have had nothing to do with the series of unfortunate actions performed by Jerry Sandusky. After punishing the actors involved in the tragedy, any subsequent punishment extends well beyond the people involved and targets innocent players, students and community members. The most obvious example of the collateral damage caused by the suspension of the Penn State football program is the large number of players who will find themselves unable to play football. At a university such as Penn State, college football is often a springboard to a career in the NFL. Without the ability to play, these students’ futures are essentially jeopardized. But the repercussions of a football suspension are more even more far reaching. Indeed, a suspension would impact the community and students who have, at best, loose ties to the Nittany Lion football program.
An economic study commissioned by Penn State for the 2008-2009 school year indicates that Penn State’s football programs brought in approximately $70.2 million to the State with 70% of that revenue benefiting Centre County (State College area) directly. If the $70.2 figure is typical of the revenue brought in by the football program during an academic year, then we are looking at a total cost of $70+ million to the school and community for shutting down the football program. In light of a stagnant economy, any additional costs to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Centre County in particular could lead to macroeconomic problems namely a potential spike in unemployment. A report issued by Tripp Umbach, a consulting and economic analysis firm based in Pittsburg indicates that the football program contributed both directly and indirectly to the creation of 1,731 jobs in Centre County. Not to mention the fact that football season draws thousands upon thousands of visitors to Happy Valley. With the large volume of visitors virtually eliminated as a result of the suspension of the football program, restaurants, hotels and other local businesses would find themselves losing a great deal of business.
The economic impact is not just local. The previously mentioned Tripp Umbach report shows that Penn State is the largest contributor to Pennsylvania’s economy with an annual economic impact of over $17 billion. Further, the report indicates that Penn State supports 67,000 + jobs in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Of course, not all of this impact is a direct consequence of the football program, that is to say, Penn State has other avenues of revenue generation. However, an annual analysis for the finances of college athletics conducted by USA Today Sports indicates that Penn State has one of the few athletic departments that is self-sustained (in fact, it profits each year). The revenue generated by the football program is the primary reasons the athletic department is in the black. Without the football program, the university will have to allocate money from its budget to make up for losses to its athletic department or else cut other sports to keep the athletic department financially independent; money that could go to support other academic departments. In extreme cases, whole academic departments may be cut due to a lack of financial resources. In sum, the punishment could diffuse to students who entered Penn State purely for academic reasons, forcing them to decide on a different major because their academic interests can no longer be supported by the university.
Supporters of the Death Penalty as a suitable punishment to Penn State’s football program argue that one year suspension will not irreparably damage the local economy and assert that it will teach powerful sports programs that they are not above reproach or punishment. I happen to disagree on both counts. A stagnant economy means that any length of time of loss profits and decreases in business revenue will have large impacts on families who have NOTHING to do with the football scandal. As for teaching powerful sports programs that they can be punished, we should punish those who are in positions of power and not the institution itself. Institutions are not beings and are therefore exempt from the label of good or evil. Instead, it is the administrators of these institutions whose actions must be judged and punished. Joe Paterno resigned in disgrace and has had his statue taken down. Jerry Sandusky has been convicted and will spend the rest of his life in prison. High ranking university administrators including the former university president are facing indictments. What else do we want? I understand that some are out for blood, but we must be smart in the use of our outrage. Punish those responsible and no one else.
~KJSW
No comments:
Post a Comment