Penn State deserved the penalties the NCAA applied in response to Sandusky scandal

Thanks for the response!Quick note: I'm gonna to drop the non-athletics argument after reading an article stating that PSU is barred from cutting scholarships to pay the fine. I'll focus on the main 2 arguments.1. Not a punishmentMy opponent says the entire university should be punished because "Penn State itself failed". But what is "Penn State"? There were only four people involved in this scandal. Four people do not represent an entire university. As a comparison, imagine if the CEO and 3 other officials of McDonald's commit child abuses. As a response, the government "sanctions" McDonald's by cutting the wages of all employees. Thats what happened here, and clearly doesn't make sense.As for punishing a dead person, Paterno's legacy was already destroyed before the sanctions even came down. 2. Unfair to innocents99.9% of people affected by the NCAA's punishment were not involved with Sandusky's abuses. My opponent agrees innocents were caught up in it. So how can you say that Penn State "deserves" the penalties when almost everyone affected by them are innocent? Pro argues that a "penance" had to be paid. Does Sandusky getting life in prison and Paterno's legacy being tarnished not qualify?ESPN's Mitt sherman analyzed 4 other schools who received a significant scholarship penalty (like Penn State). In the season following the ban, 4 of 5 schools had significantly less wins than the previous season, and the stretch lasted for multiple years (1). Tim Keown acnowledged that the penalties were literally, designed to make Penn State a losing program (2). So I disagree with my opponent - PSU will undoubtably be a poor big 10 team for quite some time, which is unfair given that the players and fans of the team were not culpable for Sandusky's crimes.Pro case:1. Magnitude warranted responseMy opponent argues that the sanctions were "for the university" and not just the "Foul Four". Problem is, the Foul Four were the only people involved in the scandal. Why punish an entire university for the actions of 4 of its members? Pro doesn't contest that Sandusky and friends are getting their proper punishment through prison time. If the ones actually responsible for the child abuses are being punished accordingly, then its nonsensical to levy punishments against anyone else. To repeat what was said earlier: 99% of people affected by the sanctions had nothing to do with the scandal.2. Setting a precedentPro says that the punishment sends a message to all universities to not cover up similar abuses like Penn State did. However, my opponent drops that criminal punishments are a better deterrent than NCAA punishments. Not reporting or covering up sexual abuses is illegal according to US law (3,4). In other words, there are already deterrents in place to prevent cover ups. The threat of NCAA sanction is unnecessary.3. Too much "cult"My opponent has no response to the President analogy, which illustrates the difference between tarnishing Paterno's legacy as a person and their legacy as a coach. Paterno's personal character has been destroyed and rightfully so. But his football life is a completely seperate issue. This is why PSU fans are justified in wanting to keep their accrued victories. Pro thinks they shouldn't think of Paterno as a hero, but he is...on the football field. Off the field, he is guilty of aiding and abetting a sexual abuser. But as before, one's professional career and off-field actions are seperate. To repeat the earlier analogy: if Mitt Romney wins the presidency and fixes the economy, then turns out to be a child molester, he still deserves credit for fixing the economy. Likewise, Joe Paterno deserves credit for his record number of victories.Good luck to Smash in his final round. (P.S. humor is cool)1. http://espn.go.com...2. http://espn.go.com...3. http://criminal.findlaw.com...4. http://www.net-temps.com...;