Sorry, I know there have been many fanposts and fanshots on this topic, but I'm posting this mainly to show that MSM arguments against a death penalty are becoming more common. This one is by SI's Michael Rosenberg (he also penned a good piece for this week's SI magazine, which doesn't seem to be available online).
A couple of highlights that stood out to me:
Banning the program is supposed to make everybody at Penn State re-think their priorities. But I think it would have the opposite effect. It would make Penn State fans feel persecuted. Instead of spending the next two seasons trying to cheer for their football team without making fools of themselves, they would be angry.
Effectively, the NCAA would be saying: "Jail and public humiliation were not punishment enough. We need to take away the ability to win football games." The NCAA would be making football seem more important, not less important.
What is the reason for giving Penn State the Death Penalty? I assume most people would say that PSU administrators deliberately ignored unlawful conduct, putting many more people in jeopardy. Well, what happens next year if:
A. A star athlete somewhere else fails a drug test.
B. The athlete's coach decides to ignore the test.
C. The kid takes drugs again, gets behind the wheel of a car and hits a pedestrian.
Would that school get the Death Penalty? I don't think the NCAA wants to set this precedent.
Slowly but surely we're starting to see more of this from the media. Hopefully, this message is getting through to Mark Emmert and friends at the NCAA, too.