MUScoop
MUScoop => Hangin' at the Al => Topic started by: Tugg Speedman on July 23, 2012, 10:21:47 AM
-
The sanctions were handed down and they were harsh.
One thing that I noticed was all current and incoming Penn State football players are free to transfer now without sitting out. They can play this fall for another school. Further, if they want to transfer to a school that is out of scholarships, they can as the NCAA will allow that school to expand it roster for PSU transfers.
I've never heard of this before, is this new? If so, I like the move. They should consider this for future schools that will be hit by sanctions. This says that current players are not punished by the actions of their precessors and it will make a school think twice about cheating if everyone can leave (Lane Kifflin at USC, I'm talking to you).
Thoughts.
-
Thoughts?
Is there a shooting guard among them?
-
Really needed a new thread for this?
-
Sounds like Marquette should start a football program by making offers to all current PSU players - not the coaches. Buzz can do that in his free time.
/walks away
//And how does this affect Newbill's status?
-
I think relaxing the transfer rules work for football... not so sure I'd ever extend this to basketball, however. Consider a scenario where Calipari finally gets caught and all of his players transferred to Syracuse. The Orange would have more 5-stars on their bench than any other team in D-I would have in their starting lineup. And if you didn't allow rosters to be expanded to accommodate, you'd be opening up the floodgates for other players to be "cut," thus creating even more transfers.
At some point the NCAA has to tell student-athletes to "man up" and take responsibility for their decisions. If a S-A happens to choose a program that happens to be dirty, then he/she has to live with the consequences if the program is ever sanctioned. Universities should have to disclose all investigations, APR scores, etc. so that the S-A can make an "informed" decision before signing an NLI, and if the university gets sanctioned for something it didn't disclose (but knew about), then the S-A should have the ability to seek retribution from the university (e.g., a multiple of the scholarship award value).
-
Same applies for football ... they can all wind up at Ohio State or Alabama.
-
We got room for Newbill.
-
Same applies for football ... they can all wind up at Ohio State or Alabama.
well, maybe not Ohio State this year (also under a post-season ban and scholarship restrictions)
if WI doesn't make the Big 10 title game this year, well can you spel H-i-r-o-s-h-i-m-a?
-
Same applies for football ... they can all wind up at Ohio State or Alabama.
Unlike basketball, football has a roster maximum - 105. If you already have your own 85 scholarship players, you're only going to take 20 PSU transfers. So instead of 85 scholarship players, you'd have 105... less than a 25% addition. In basketball, taking just five scholarship players from a "disciplined" program would increase your scholarship numbers by nearly 40% and still keep you under the roster size of D-I teams carrying a bunch of walk-ons.
-
Sad part of all of this, other than obvioulsy those violated by Sandusky, is that this never needed to be about Penn State FB in the first place. It took the mis-guided actions of PSU adminstrators and Paterno to "protect" the program. Had they done the right thing in the first place, the storyline would have been about a former employee who abused the privileges of using PSU facilities and events with some small "taint" on PSU.
Now Sandusky is in jail for life and the admiinstrators have ruined their own professional lives and are subject to criminal and civil actions and likely could end upo in jail. Paterno's legacy is ruind and his family has and will continue to suffer. And, PSU and its FB program now suffer far, far, far more in many ways than any perceived taint that may have arisen in dealing with Sandusky in the proper manner in the first place.
-
At some point the NCAA has to tell student-athletes to "man up" and take responsibility for their decisions. If a S-A happens to choose a program that happens to be dirty, then he/she has to live with the consequences if the program is ever sanctioned. Universities should have to disclose all investigations, APR scores, etc. so that the S-A can make an "informed" decision before signing an NLI, and if the university gets sanctioned for something it didn't disclose (but knew about), then the S-A should have the ability to seek retribution from the university (e.g., a multiple of the scholarship award value).
This is not about football players "man-ing up" but about hammering a dirty program so they change their ways. I like the "free to transfer" punishment handed to school because it will get a dirty program to think twice about cheating.
-
This is not about football players "man-ing up" but about hammering a dirty program so they change their ways. I like the "free to transfer" punishment handed to school because it will get a dirty program to think twice about cheating.
This is different, because it did not involve cheating in recruiting. A player that goes to a University that cheated to get him, should not be allowed a free transfer. The player knowingly or unknowingly is involved in the cheating process. Recruits should also be expected to know the recruiting rules and abide by them. A recruit should be expected to run from a coach that contacts them in a quiet period or offers them something that is not permitted.
-
Does anyone know ...
Can a current PSU "re-sign" with the team? Otherwise, they are on the open market and will be hounded forever by other schools assistants, "street agents" and/or boosters. So, can a current PSU player "re-sign" as a way to tell all of them to leave him alone?
-
Does anyone know ...
Can a current PSU "re-sign" with the team? Otherwise, they are on the open market and will be hounded forever by other schools assistants, "street agents" and/or boosters. So, can a current PSU player "re-sign" as a way to tell all of them to leave him alone?
Unless the player asks for a release, he would be off-limits for other schools technically. Though, I suspect there will be an awful lot of back-channeling going on .......
-
Unless the player asks for a release, he would be off-limits for other schools technically. Though, I suspect there will be an awful lot of back-channeling going on .......
Urban Meyer and Lane Kiffin were already seen on PSU's campus wearing sunglasses and fake mustaches.
-
Hasn't this scenario already happened in basketball? I thought this is why the guy from UConn (who's name I can't remember) was allowed to transfer without sitting out.
-
This just in: the Big Ten Network has merged with Court TV.
-
Hasn't this scenario already happened in basketball? I thought this is why the guy from UConn (who's name I can't remember) was allowed to transfer without sitting out.
Roscoe Smith, Oriaki, etc.
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7846769/roscoe-smith-michael-bradley-granted-release-connecticut-huskies
http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/story/_/id/7974198/former-uconn-huskies-forward-roscoe-smith-transfers-unlv-rebels
-
Hasn't this scenario already happened in basketball? I thought this is why the guy from UConn (who's name I can't remember) was allowed to transfer without sitting out.
The difference is that they could transfer to another program so long as the other program had a scholarship available (or could make one available). In this case with Penn State, an "accepting" school can offer a scholarship to a PSU transfer even if it puts them over the maximum.
-
This was an important aspect of the "death penalty" given to SMU. I do like the fact that current PSU players are not being punished for something they likely had nothing to do with and knew nothing about. It is also a very severe penalty on PSU because it gives them no means to keep their current players. They will crumble.
-
It will be interesting what the Big 10 does about them. They should easily become the worst football team in the Big 10 for several years. I suppose a team that would not of been bowl eligible now would be eligible, because they are beating a poor Penn St team vs. losing to a very good one. However, ignoring that the Big 10 has lost a bowl game, which hurts every team's pocket book.
-
I think some very important points are getting missed and mslabeled in an attempt by the NCAA to come accross as the "cops" or the good guys here. The crimes committed by Sandusky are henious and cruel and should go punished and prosecuted as they have been. He has fnally been stopped and can do no more harm to anyone, but the harm already done can not be "undone."
The real crimes here are the inability of the people in power at the university to act a long time ago. I don't think they actually acted to protect the football program, at all. Certainly they delayed bad publicity on it and themselves. I think they acted, or didn't act out of fear for themselves, the unknown, the fear of being wrong, the fear of being right, the fear of Sandusky, the fear of not really knowing what to do and how to go about it. This is not making their actions right by any means, at all.
Victims are talking now but in how many cases, with other people and vicitms, have the vicitms not spoken out until very much later?? Would they have testified against Sandusky then or even come forward? Remember that Sandusky was a pretty revered guy in the PSU commnuity, as well. Many of the vicitms held Sandusky in high regard and may not have sought to prosecute him then....
The university and it's board of trustees should be punished hard or even harder. Criminal charges are and should be pending against those with ANY iota of information or influence or official responsibility at the time. Paterno's legacy will be irreparably harmed but he can not defend himself or offer any insight into his actions today. We know some but not all he knew or thought.
The current players ARE paying a price for "others" cirmes!! The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit. The program WAS run above board, or so it seems, noted by many in the business then and now. The current players and staff ARE paying a price for the "lack of institutional control" of others.
Why take away bowl games? Limit recruiting? The reputation, stigma of the crimes, change in coaching staff and heavy negative recruiting by other programs will certainly take a toll on the future of Penn State football without "official" santions.
I believe the fines are just, as well as the establishment of the use of the funds for the protection of abused children and the like. Even raise the fines!! Make annual, future, fines permanent!! Like an endowment. No cap or ceiling. It's never over for the abused kids, why should it be for the school if you want to make a point.
BUT. Don't cripple the program by limiting grants-in-aid. Don't drive off current players. Enough other changes will do that. How do you expect the school to come up with the funds to PAY the fines??? Tax revenues? You live in Pa? If this was Marquette would tuition be raised to cover lost athletic revenues, which are substantial? How would future students families like that?
The football program was financially successful. Tax the hell out of it, don't kill it. The "death penalty" or severe actions against the team and players should only be invoked if it was an actual beneficiary of bad deeds. The adminstration made some bad decisions for sure, should be fired and prosecuted and punished as a result and example.
I am not a Penn State alumni, fan or supporter by any means, but let's look a bit deeper in the actions and reactions we take. Knee jerk and "good" publicity reactions may not be the answers either, at all. What do we really need to do? Not forget for sure and that may be the biggest legacy to leave here.........
-
BUT. Don't cripple the program by limiting grants-in-aid. Don't drive off current players. Enough other changes will do that. How do you expect the school to come up with the funds to PAY the fines??? Tax revenues? You live in Pa? If this was Marquette would tuition be raised to cover lost athletic revenues, which are substantial? How would future students families like that?
some one posted earlier about the size of the university's endowment ($1.3 Billion?)
-
It will be interesting what the Big 10 does about them.
the only thing the Big 10 did was that they are not eligible for any bowl revenue during the 4 years they are not bowl eligible - around $13 million will be split amongst the remaining teams which I guess will have to take that as compensation for PSU driving down the conference market value
another's reply below is correct
I thought the $13 million was being donated to charity.
-
the only thing the Big 10 did was that they are not eligible for any bowl revenue during the 4 years they are not bowl eligible - around $13 million will be split amongst the remaining teams which I guess will have to take that as compensation for PSU driving down the conference market value
I thought the $13 million was being donated to charity.
-
One of the purposes of a University Endowment Fund is to provide academic scholarships out of the earnings on the endowment investments. I am not saying Penn St should not be punished, but the $60 million dollar penalty hurts future students, who had nothing to do with the scandal.
-
All the punishments hurt the students. The penalties should be in the form of firings and civil suits of those who did not act to protect the students from a predator.
-
I think some very important points are getting missed and mslabeled in an attempt by the NCAA to come accross as the "cops" or the good guys here. The crimes committed by Sandusky are henious and cruel and should go punished and prosecuted as they have been. He has fnally been stopped and can do no more harm to anyone, but the harm already done can not be "undone."
The real crimes here are the inability of the people in power at the university to act a long time ago. I don't think they actually acted to protect the football program, at all. Certainly they delayed bad publicity on it and themselves. I think they acted, or didn't act out of fear for themselves, the unknown, the fear of being wrong, the fear of being right, the fear of Sandusky, the fear of not really knowing what to do and how to go about it. This is not making their actions right by any means, at all.
Victims are talking now but in how many cases, with other people and vicitms, have the vicitms not spoken out until very much later?? Would they have testified against Sandusky then or even come forward? Remember that Sandusky was a pretty revered guy in the PSU commnuity, as well. Many of the vicitms held Sandusky in high regard and may not have sought to prosecute him then....
The university and it's board of trustees should be punished hard or even harder. Criminal charges are and should be pending against those with ANY iota of information or influence or official responsibility at the time. Paterno's legacy will be irreparably harmed but he can not defend himself or offer any insight into his actions today. We know some but not all he knew or thought.
The current players ARE paying a price for "others" cirmes!! The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit. The program WAS run above board, or so it seems, noted by many in the business then and now. The current players and staff ARE paying a price for the "lack of institutional control" of others.
Why take away bowl games? Limit recruiting? The reputation, stigma of the crimes, change in coaching staff and heavy negative recruiting by other programs will certainly take a toll on the future of Penn State football without "official" santions.
I believe the fines are just, as well as the establishment of the use of the funds for the protection of abused children and the like. Even raise the fines!! Make annual, future, fines permanent!! Like an endowment. No cap or ceiling. It's never over for the abused kids, why should it be for the school if you want to make a point.
BUT. Don't cripple the program by limiting grants-in-aid. Don't drive off current players. Enough other changes will do that. How do you expect the school to come up with the funds to PAY the fines??? Tax revenues? You live in Pa? If this was Marquette would tuition be raised to cover lost athletic revenues, which are substantial? How would future students families like that?
The football program was financially successful. Tax the hell out of it, don't kill it. The "death penalty" or severe actions against the team and players should only be invoked if it was an actual beneficiary of bad deeds. The adminstration made some bad decisions for sure, should be fired and prosecuted and punished as a result and example.
I am not a Penn State alumni, fan or supporter by any means, but let's look a bit deeper in the actions and reactions we take. Knee jerk and "good" publicity reactions may not be the answers either, at all. What do we really need to do? Not forget for sure and that may be the biggest legacy to leave here.........
Did you read the Freeh Report?
-
some one posted earlier about the size of the university's endowment ($1.3 Billion?)
It is doubtful that the University's endowment may be used to pay the fine. By law, an endowment generally may be invested and only the annual earnings may be paid to support a program that the donor designates. There may be some wriggle room with some of the funds, but don't be mislead by this. Endowments are usually not very fungible.
-
It is doubtful that the University's endowment may be used to pay the fine. By law, an endowment generally may be invested and only the annual earnings may be paid to support a program that the donor designates. There may be some wriggle room with some of the funds, but don't be mislead by this. Endowments are usually not very fungible.
by law?
-
THANK GOD THE BIG EAST DID NOT OFFER THEM A SPOT DECADES AGO!!
-
The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit.
Thanks for a thorough post. About all of your points are well thought out. I've heard a popular argument that PSU did not gain a competitive advantage throughout this ordeal (not sure if this is an argument you're making here as well).
The school hid information which, if revealed, would have resulted in the firing of a top coach and perhaps head coach as early as 1998. This seems to me a "competitive advantage" just the same as Ohio State gained a competitive advantage by covering up serious infractions of their star players... as well as protecting their revenues.
-
by law?
Um, yeah. Contract law, if anything. Most, if not all, endowment funds have a lot of detailed rules on how it can and cannot be spent. Most donors want to make sure that their money is used in the manner that they intended. Who would donate to the Blue and Gold fund, for example, if the BOT could arbitrarily decide to waste that money on, say, comfy new chairs for their boardroom, or nursing scholarships?
I suppose it is possible that a judge could decide to nullify that contract in extreme cases, but I would think that most courts would hold that pretty sacrosanct, much in the way that you can't touch a person's retirement savings when suing them civilly.
-
Yes, endowment management for charities is governed by a series of state laws. Such laws may superceded by carefully worded agreements with donors however. Pennsylvania (surprise, surprise) has a someone unique endowment management law, but it still has the basics.
warriorchick....contract law only comes into play when these donor agreements supercede the state law.
For instance, Marquette cannot take $100,000 for an engineering scholarship and spend it to build a dentistry building. Besides being completely unethical, the State of Wisconsin could file a civil suit against the University.
-
Yes, endowment management for charities is governed by a series of state laws. Such laws may superceded by carefully worded agreements with donors however. Pennsylvania (surprise, surprise) has a someone unique endowment management law, but it still has the basics.
warriorchick....contract law only comes into play when these donor agreements supercede the state law.
For instance, Marquette cannot take $100,000 for an engineering scholarship and spend it to build a dentistry building. Besides being completely unethical, the State of Wisconsin could file a civil suit against the University.
Thanks, Sultan, I know you are the expert on this type of thing :)
-
You are welcome. The one thing that is interesting is that only recently has the donor had any standing in the courts. For instance, if you were the donor to the engineering scholarship above, you could not sue to the University for using it for dentistry. Only the State could bring suit. However those rules are changing at both the state level and through court precedent.
-
The current players ARE paying a price for "others" cirmes!! The school didn't cheat to win games, increase revenues, change grades, illegally recruit. The program WAS run above board, or so it seems, noted by many in the business then and now. The current players and staff ARE paying a price for the "lack of institutional control" of others.
One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.
-
One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.
Exactly... the whole implication here is that the primary reason the parties engaged in a cover-up was to protect the football program and coaching staff, not the university. That's the link that gives the NCAA jurisdiction, because all of this was apparently carried out in the interests of athletics.
-
One could argue that not reporting to the authorities that there was a child molester on the coaching staff was, in a round about way, illegally helping recruiting and increasing revenue. If Sandusky were arrested, tried and convicted in 1998, don't you think that would have had a negative effect on recruiting, revenue and the university as a whole? If none of this was ever brought to light, Joe Pa would still be revered and Penn State would still be viewed as a national football power.
I'm breaking my vow of silence. They did report Sandusky in 98, the police investigated, a psychologist(John Seasock) conducted an examination and found him not to be a pedophile but someone with "boundary issues"(whatever that means). The prosecutor(Ray Gricar) was given all the evidence and information and declined to prosecute. So your first premise is out the window.
Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment? Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.
So what would be the point of the cover-up exactly? In fact given the power struggle going on at Penn State at the time(leadership wanted Paterno out, Paterno didn't want to go) this is the very wedge that would have allowed the leadership to remove Paterno.
I think if there was a cover up it came much later, around 2010/2011 when everyone started to put the pieces together and went holy shnikes this is going to look bad.
-
I'm breaking my vow of silence. They did report Sandusky in 98, the police investigated, a psychologist(John Seasock) conducted an examination and found him not to be a pedophile but someone with "boundary issues"(whatever that means). The prosecutor(Ray Gricar) was given all the evidence and information and declined to prosecute. So your first premise is out the window.
Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment? Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.
So what would be the point of the cover-up exactly? In fact given the power struggle going on at Penn State at the time(leadership wanted Paterno out, Paterno didn't want to go) this is the very wedge that would have allowed the leadership to remove Paterno.
I think if there was a cover up it came much later, around 2010/2011 when everyone started to put the pieces together and went holy shnikes this is going to look bad.
Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?
-
Also, Sandusky retired in 98, if they reported him in 2001 and he was convicted, what possible impact would that have on recruitment? Players are reaffirming their commitment to the team now despite the 2nd biggest punishment extended by the NCAA ever.
Which players? I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.
-
Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll only lose because everyone "knows" what happened. But just for the record, even in the Freeh report Sandusky's retirement had NOTHING to do with the 98 incident, he was already retiring, merely negotiating his out terms. I would agree that Schultz at a minimum knew something as the head of University police as he turned everything over to university police and the DA. However the DA said there was nothing to see.
If they out Sandusky in 2001, there is no way there is blow back. They turned him in 98, nothing happened, if they tried again in 2001 and it stuck who's going to be pissed??? Are the suppose to be prosecutors too? There was zero incentive to cover something up in 2001.
-
Which players? I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.
Well, it's only been just over 24 hours. I think you aren't going to see many current players transfer, but I think their incoming class might see some departures as well as many of their 2013 commits.
-
Which players? I was expecting more news relating to transfers, commits, etc., but haven't seen a thing yet.
Gary Gilliam, TE
Matt McGloin, QB(eh)
Lydall Sargant, LB
Incoming recruits
Brendan Mahon, OL
Garrett Sickels, DT
Adam Breneman, WR
Christian Hackenberg, top 150 QB
All confirmed via twitter and/or statement. All very well may change over the next couple of weeks once the parents realize this might be a bad idea, but so far there have been relatively few defections.
Silas Redd is rumored to be being courted by USC, but no word if he's going or not....that would be a big blow to this year's team.
-
Well, it's only been just over 24 hours. I think you aren't going to see many current players transfer, but I think their incoming class might see some departures as well as many of their 2013 commits.
Agreed... if I'm a middle-of-the-road, fifth-year senior, why transfer now? However, if I'm an "early-entry" caliber player and need the exposure to improve my draft stock, then I'm high-tailing it out of Happy V.
I fully expect Silas Redd to transfer. I don't imagine many of the "hey... I'm just lucky I got a scholarship" guys will transfer.
-
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll only lose because everyone "knows" what happened. But just for the record, even in the Freeh report Sandusky's retirement had NOTHING to do with the 98 incident, he was already retiring, merely negotiating his out terms. I would agree that Schultz at a minimum knew something as the head of University police as he turned everything over to university police and the DA. However the DA said there was nothing to see.
If they out Sandusky in 2001, there is no way there is blow back. They turned him in 98, nothing happened, if they tried again in 2001 and it stuck who's going to be pissed??? Are the suppose to be prosecutors too? There was zero incentive to cover something up in 2001.
Sooooo...let me understand what u are saying??
You are saying that the coach-in-waiting at one of the most successful programs in the country just out of the blue decides to retire after Paterno takes away his coach in waiting moniker and it all happens about the same time that he was first caught or assumed to be a huge liabilty to the program/university?
I am not gonna sit here and state that i know exactly what happened but that whole scenario stinks and in hindsight I think it can rather easily be put together.
Sooooo...let me understand what u are saying??
You are saying that the coaching waiting at one of the most successful programs in the country just out of the blue decides to retire after Paterno takes away his coach in waiting moniker and it all happens about the same time that he was first caught or assumed to be a huge liabilty to the program/university?
I am not gonna sit here and state that i know exactly what happened but that whole scenario stinks and in hindsight I think it can rather easily be put together.
-
Penn State officials knew that Sandusky had been accused of being a pedophile and was "diagnosed" with "boundary issues" in 1998. He suddenly retired shortly thereafter but was given a large compensation package and special access to university facilities. That means that Joe Pa and PSU officials knew about his past issues when he was caught in the shower by McQueary yet they had still allowed him to bring young boys onto campus and into the football lockerroom for 3 years (up to that point). You don't think that would have tarnished JoePa and/or PSU?
You are exactly right and at the end of the day who cares if it would of or how much it would have tarnished the university. When a university and an athletic program in essence is running a pedophile sex ring whether it had anyhting to do with on filed success or not it should have the entire library thrown at it. Becuase they lacked the moral fortitude to do anything about it. A huge violation, amybe a different vioaltion than what we are used to but at the end of the day prolly even a worse one
-
Dimes, Sandusky was never the coach in waiting, that is a media construction. First Paterno wasn't going to retire in the next 10 years and Sandusky was in his late 50s in 98. Second, as documented in the Freeh report everyone loves to wave around Paterno had written a letter to Sandusky in late 97 saying he would not be the next coach because he spent too much time with the 2nd Mile Charity. Its all an invention to make the narrative more plausible.
-
I have a serious question with the actions taken by the NCAA against Penn State. While I loathe what Jerry Sandusky did and what the university did to cover the problem up (we Catholics know well all about cover-ups of similar actions, don't we), the NCAA's sanctions are absurd and akin to closing the barn door after the cows have trampled the neighbor's neighbor's neighbor's fence and now are out grazing in the median of Interstate 94.
Taking away victories, for one, is usually reserved for when a team uses an illegal player, such as what happened when USC used OJ Mayo or Reggie Bush. I suspect this was more done for the NCAA's sake to avoid the embarrassment of having to deal with Joe Pa in perpetuity. What illegal player did Penn State play? What are you saying about the efforts of hundreds of NCAA qualified Division 1 athletes from 1998 to 2011. You didn't punish the university as the money from the games has been collected and spent. You punished the young men whose efforts have forever been erased from the NCAA's memory
As far as institutional control over the football team goes, you have to be kidding, right? Is this not the NCAA who takes advantage of often under-privileged athletes, too often offers an education that comparatively few are trained to capitalize on? Is this not the NCAA that pays players not a dime for their services, which make millions for member institutions? Is this not legalized monopoly that takes a players' image and pays him or her not a dime in perpetuity despite using their image to market forever and ever?
Hey NCAA, You feel good about fining Penn State $60 million. But you took it from university operations. Think about it next time Penn State increases tuition at twice the rate of inflation -- or more. Think about it when a promising piece of research is cancelled because someone had to pay a fine.
The real fact is that we have met the enemy and it is ourselves. The NCAA is a joke. Al knew it in the 1960s and 1970s -- when it went after him for being outspoken and likely for winning with heretofore unseen levels of integrated basketball teams (yes, Adolph Rupp, we DO remember!). We've known it recently in the greed surrounding "conference realignment." We see it in the pettiness of the NCAA tournament, who gets in and who does not and we see it in the sanctimoniousness of NCAA officials when someone goes rogue.
I'll say it again, what happened at Penn State was terrible. But, management has changed, the football coach was fired and the University president was ushered from office. Short of lining up the students and shooting them, I'm not sure what else you can do.
-
I'll say it again, what happened at Penn State was terrible. But, management has changed, the football coach was fired and the University president was ushered from office. Short of lining up the students and shooting them, I'm not sure what else you can do.
Ah, so we have reached the "absurd hyperbole" point of the discussion...
-
Ah, so we have reached the "absurd hyperbole" point of the discussion...
Wow. Yes we have.
-
Ah, so we have reached the "absurd hyperbole" point of the discussion...
Time for Hitler?
(http://www.overadulthood.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/10/emo_hitler-web.jpg)
-
I love the whole "any sanction will disrupt the life of someone, somewhere, so I don't think there should be any sanction but I know this is unpalatable with people so I won't offer an alternative."
-
I love the whole "any sanction will disrupt the life of someone, somewhere, so I don't think there should be any sanction but I know this is unpalatable with people so I won't offer an alternative."
Exactly. Is there such a thing as a punishment that doesn't affect innocent people unfairly? What about when you and your buddy plan to go to the movies, but your buddy got grounded, and now you can't go?
What about all of the kids that grow up in poverty because their knucklehead fathers are sitting in prison instead of supporting them?
How about the fact that I have to pay taxes to feed and house said knuckleheads?
-
I have a serious question with the actions taken by the NCAA against Penn State. While I loathe what Jerry Sandusky did and what the university did to cover the problem up (we Catholics know well all about cover-ups of similar actions, don't we), the NCAA's sanctions are absurd and akin to closing the barn door after the cows have trampled the neighbor's neighbor's neighbor's fence and now are out grazing in the median of Interstate 94.
Taking away victories, for one, is usually reserved for when a team uses an illegal player, such as what happened when USC used OJ Mayo or Reggie Bush. I suspect this was more done for the NCAA's sake to avoid the embarrassment of having to deal with Joe Pa in perpetuity. What illegal player did Penn State play? What are you saying about the efforts of hundreds of NCAA qualified Division 1 athletes from 1998 to 2011. You didn't punish the university as the money from the games has been collected and spent. You punished the young men whose efforts have forever been erased from the NCAA's memory
As far as institutional control over the football team goes, you have to be kidding, right? Is this not the NCAA who takes advantage of often under-privileged athletes, too often offers an education that comparatively few are trained to capitalize on? Is this not the NCAA that pays players not a dime for their services, which make millions for member institutions? Is this not legalized monopoly that takes a players' image and pays him or her not a dime in perpetuity despite using their image to market forever and ever?
Hey NCAA, You feel good about fining Penn State $60 million. But you took it from university operations. Think about it next time Penn State increases tuition at twice the rate of inflation -- or more. Think about it when a promising piece of research is cancelled because someone had to pay a fine.
The real fact is that we have met the enemy and it is ourselves. The NCAA is a joke. Al knew it in the 1960s and 1970s -- when it went after him for being outspoken and likely for winning with heretofore unseen levels of integrated basketball teams (yes, Adolph Rupp, we DO remember!). We've known it recently in the greed surrounding "conference realignment." We see it in the pettiness of the NCAA tournament, who gets in and who does not and we see it in the sanctimoniousness of NCAA officials when someone goes rogue.
I'll say it again, what happened at Penn State was terrible. But, management has changed, the football coach was fired and the University president was ushered from office. Short of lining up the students and shooting them, I'm not sure what else you can do.
In court, when determining sentence, a judge is asked to consider not only appropriate punishment for the guilty party, but also deterrent so as to discourage similar acts by others.
Whether that's actually prevented a crime, I don't know.
But you can bet what's happened to Penn State will have ADs and coaches across the country thinking long and hard about the potential consequences of such horrendous behavior. And that's a good thing. I certainly have no problem with the NCAA making an example out of Penn State.
-
In court, when determining sentence, a judge is asked to consider not only appropriate punishment for the guilty party, but also deterrent so as to discourage similar acts by others.
Whether that's actually prevented a crime, I don't know.
But you can bet what's happened to Penn State will have ADs and coaches across the country thinking long and hard about the potential consequences of such horrendous behavior. And that's a good thing. I certainly have no problem with the NCAA making an example out of Penn State.
Retribution
Deterrence
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
-
Retribution
Deterrence
Incapacitation
Rehabilitation
I had a philosophy teacher at MU who felt that retribution was barbaric and deterrence a myth. He thought prison should be nothing more than a rehab center. Even as a very green 19 yr old I found his naivetee incredible.
-
(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/marq/galleries/al-mcguire-012601/Al-McGuire-17-paterno-lg.jpg)
Just think what could have been (or wouldn't have happened) had that ball been knocked loose.
-
Just a note: The rule allowing players to transfer to school who have no remaining scholarships only applies to this year. Should they keep the player the following year, they would be one scholarship over.
-
(http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/marq/galleries/al-mcguire-012601/Al-McGuire-17-paterno-lg.jpg)
Just think what could have been (or wouldn't have happened) had that ball been knocked loose.
Awesome picture.
-
I don't want to go down the rabbit hole, I'll only lose because everyone "knows" what happened. But just for the record, even in the Freeh report Sandusky's retirement had NOTHING to do with the 98 incident, he was already retiring, merely negotiating his out terms. I would agree that Schultz at a minimum knew something as the head of University police as he turned everything over to university police and the DA. However the DA said there was nothing to see.
If they out Sandusky in 2001, there is no way there is blow back. They turned him in 98, nothing happened, if they tried again in 2001 and it stuck who's going to be pissed??? Are the suppose to be prosecutors too? There was zero incentive to cover something up in 2001.
Two personal accounts of a guy messing with kids, one with a graphic d to a account. He runs a kids foundation and he's always bringing a new one around to big games, without his wife, sharing a hotel room. He's always rubbing on kids legs in front of people. Janitors are taking smoke breaks when they see him pull in...
You realize that the report only included what they could prove. I would bet anything that this conversation was had dozens (if not 100s) of times at Sandusky's Play Pen*:
Sandusky walks by with one of his angels** quite possibly cupping his ass
"Did you hear that he's is a perv?"
"Who"
"Sandusky, he's always rubbing up on those kids he brings around"
"Sick"
At that point it's institutionalized evil. Keep in mind that they kept sending him out on recruiting trips pretty much till the day the news broke and that educators are held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
*am i the first one to come up with that?
**how could you know and read the book without getting sick?
-
Two personal accounts of a guy messing with kids, one with a graphic d to a account. He runs a kids foundation and he's always bringing a new one around to big games, without his wife, sharing a hotel room. He's always rubbing on kids legs in front of people. Janitors are taking smoke breaks when they see him pull in...
You realize that the report only included what they could prove. I would bet anything that this conversation was had dozens (if not 100s) of times at Sandusky's Play Pen*:
Sandusky walks by with one of his angels** quite possibly cupping his ass
"Did you hear that he's is a perv?"
"Who"
"Sandusky, he's always rubbing up on those kids he brings around"
"Sick"
At that point it's institutionalized evil. Keep in mind that they kept sending him out on recruiting trips pretty much till the day the news broke and that educators are held to a higher standard than the rest of us.
*am i the first one to come up with that?
**how could you know and read the book without getting sick?
Not defending, just correcting facts in your story.
-Sandusky's last recruiting trip was 1997.
-There is no d to a account. McQuery's testimony never mentions d to a....that was put into the Grand Jury presentment by the DA to amplify and inflame the grand jury and the public. In fact, the only charges Sandusky was acquitted on were those associated with the McQuery incident.
The GJ presentment did what it was meant to do, it smoked out more victims so charges could be brought and this monster put in jail. However, to say there is d to a account in there is simply not true. Page 7 of GJ presentment is where that reference appears and its the summation of of the presenting DA(or AG, I can't remember).
Again not a defense, but we should at least get the facts right before executing people.
-
Not defending, just correcting facts in your story.
-Sandusky's last recruiting trip was 1997.
-There is no d to a account. McQuery's testimony never mentions d to a....that was put into the Grand Jury presentment by the DA to amplify and inflame the grand jury and the public. In fact, the only charges Sandusky was acquitted on were those associated with the McQuery incident.
The GJ presentment did what it was meant to do, it smoked out more victims so charges could be brought and this monster put in jail. However, to say there is d to a account in there is simply not true. Page 7 of GJ presentment is where that reference appears and its the summation of of the presenting DA(or AG, I can't remember).
Again not a defense, but we should at least get the facts right before executing people.
Amazing how something that is not a defense sounds and writes exactly like a defense.
-
Not defending, just correcting facts in your story.
-Sandusky's last recruiting trip was 1997.
-There is no d to a account. McQuery's testimony never mentions d to a....that was put into the Grand Jury presentment by the DA to amplify and inflame the grand jury and the public. In fact, the only charges Sandusky was acquitted on were those associated with the McQuery incident.
The GJ presentment did what it was meant to do, it smoked out more victims so charges could be brought and this monster put in jail. However, to say there is d to a account in there is simply not true. Page 7 of GJ presentment is where that reference appears and its the summation of of the presenting DA(or AG, I can't remember).
Again not a defense, but we should at least get the facts right before executing people.
It was a joke among students at PSU that Sandusky was a pedophile because he always had young boys around him.
Sandusky's last official recruiting trip may have been in 1997, but he was taking recruiting trips as recently as 2011. There have been several recruits who have mentioned this.
-
It is doubtful that the University's endowment may be used to pay the fine. By law, an endowment generally may be invested and only the annual earnings may be paid to support a program that the donor designates. There may be some wriggle room with some of the funds, but don't be mislead by this. Endowments are usually not very fungible.
But money is.
Example: PSU cuts academic expenses to pay the fine. They use the endowment fund to restore programs cut due to reductions in adacemic funding.
-
Amazing how something that is not a defense sounds and writes exactly like a defense.
Point out where I defend anything. I never said anything that followed was wrong or incorrect. The facts are damning enough, no need to lie about stuff to really really execute them.
-
It was a joke among students at PSU that Sandusky was a pedophile because he always had young boys around him.
Sandusky's last official recruiting trip may have been in 1997, but he was taking recruiting trips as recently as 2011. There have been several recruits who have mentioned this.
There was one "recruit" and it was later debunked that Sandusky talked to him and that PSU wasn't even recruiting him. Find me any evidence to the contrary and I'll change my tune on that.
-
So what, exactly, is your point? People are going to hard after Sandusky? The people running PSU are only 50% as evil as Hitler instead of 75%?
-
So what, exactly, is your point? People are going to hard after Sandusky? The people running PSU are only 50% as evil as Hitler instead of 75%?
Apparently hyperbole can go both ways. Not sure how you can interpret anything I said as leniency on Sandusky, the dude should be beaten to death with a wet noodle.
My point is that if you can't be bothered to know the facts than you shouldn't be rendering judgement. And if we are going to get outraged about stuff that isn't true, we have a good chance of missing the lessons that should be learned from this.
We should be talking about how do you identify a pedophile and how do you do so when they are someone close(family, friend, pastor, etc) to you. Instead everyone is making it out to be the easiest thing to spot and take action on in this situation, which is patently false. Everyone is so caught up in vengeance and holier than thou attitude that they don't realize the very same thing could happen in their family, organization, or school.
-
We should be talking about how do you identify a pedophile and how do you do so when they are someone close(family, friend, pastor, etc) to you. Instead everyone is making it out to be the easiest thing to spot and take action on in this situation, which is patently false. Everyone is so caught up in vengeance and holier than thou attitude that they don't realize the very same thing could happen in their family, organization, or school.
You can dish out punishment to PSU and use this as a teachable moment about pedophilia. This isn't a zero sum game.
-
You can dish out punishment to PSU and use this as a teachable moment about pedophilia. This isn't a zero sum game.
Absolutely correct, and I'm not arguing for alteration of the punishment, it is what it is. Lets just get the facts right otherwise we will miss the point
-
We should be talking about how do you identify a pedophile and how do you do so when they are someone close(family, friend, pastor, etc) to you. Instead everyone is making it out to be the easiest thing to spot and take action on in this situation, which is patently false. Everyone is so caught up in vengeance and holier than thou attitude that they don't realize the very same thing could happen in their family, organization, or school.
You hit the nail squarely on the head right here!!! Everyone acts like a very easy, obvious, "no brainer" event was missed and that everyone else would have easily and quickly identified and responded to the events. That is utter BS and absolute 20/20 hindsight!!!! I don't believe many people now judging PSU and the people under scrutiny would have taken any better, swifter or more conclusove steps.
What if the next criminal IS your brother? Cousin? Boss? Priest? Be honest...
It's not as easy as it looks.............................
But think of the kids, and that one of them was yours.................
-
We should be talking about how do you identify a pedophile and how do you do so when they are someone close(family, friend, pastor, etc) to you. Instead everyone is making it out to be the easiest thing to spot and take action on in this situation, which is patently false. Everyone is so caught up in vengeance and holier than thou attitude that they don't realize the very same thing could happen in their family, organization, or school.
I'm fairly certain that if I see someone having anal sex with a child in a shower that I have correctly identified a "pedophile." Maybe I'm just psychic that way.
-
You hit the nail squarely on the head right here!!! Everyone acts like a very easy, obvious, "no brainer" event was missed and that everyone else would have easily and quickly identified and responded to the events. That is utter BS and absolute 20/20 hindsight!!!! I don't believe many people now judging PSU and the people under scrutiny would have taken any better, swifter or more conclusove steps.
What if the next criminal IS your brother? Cousin? Boss? Priest? Be honest...
It's not as easy as it looks.............................
But think of the kids, and that one of them was yours.................
McQuery didn't seem to have any problem identifying and responding. The janitors didn't seem to have any problem identifying. Victim #4's mother didn't seem to have any problem identifying. This isn't a case of "I should have recognized, my bad" that you're implying. It's a case of "I recognized but chose to conceal." Sure, McQuery should have gone to the police months later when he recognized nothing was being done, but he did make a report. Others made reports, too. There was a very deliberate effort on the part of JVP, Curley and Schultz to coverup multiple felonies, the occurrences of which they were clearly aware.
-
McQuery didn't seem to have any problem identifying and responding. The janitors didn't seem to have any problem identifying. Victim #4's mother didn't seem to have any problem identifying. This isn't a case of "I should have recognized, my bad" that you're implying. It's a case of "I recognized but chose to conceal." Sure, McQuery should have gone to the police months later when he recognized nothing was being done, but he did make a report. Others made reports, too. There was a very deliberate effort on the part of JVP, Curley and Schultz to coverup multiple felonies, the occurrences of which they were clearly aware.
No, McQuery should have gone to police that night, not months later. He didn't need to talk to his daddy. He didn't need to talk to JoePa. He was a friggin' 28-year-old man when he stumbled upon Sandusky raping a little boy.
The correct response would have been:
1. Intervene (preferably with an a**-kicking of the pedophile).
2. Ensure the child's safety and health.
3. Call police immediately thereafter.
McQuery also concealed this by his failure to act appropriately, is no less culpable than anyone else involved in covering it up. He put his own interests ahead of those kids.
-
McQuery also concealed this by his failure to act appropriately, is no less culpable than anyone else involved in covering it up.
Exactly my point. Dozens of people knew what was going on, but nobody did a darn thing to stop it for nearly 13 years.
He put his own interests ahead of those kids.
Partially true. Not going to the police immediately absolutely put the child's interests last, but McQuery knew that the potential of retribution for reporting a "superior's" misconduct existed when he reported the incident to JVP. So McQuery initially had his own interests ahead of the child's, but his interests were at risk. So was McQuery protecting his own interests when he chose not to go the police or escalated the issue with the administration days/weeks/months later? No... people already knew what he saw, and there was no closure as far as we know. So McQuery probably woke up every morning realizing that his job could be in jeopardy regardless of whether or not he said another word, and by not saying anything he put the interests someone (or something) else ahead of his own.
McQuery never pushed the matter outside the football program because he placed the program's interests ahead of even his own. McQuery put his own rear on the line at least once, but never did he put PSU Football at risk.
-
Exactly my point. Dozens of people knew what was going on, but nobody did a darn thing to stop it for nearly 13 years.
Partially true. Not going to the police immediately absolutely put the child's interests last, but McQuery knew that the potential of retribution for reporting a "superior's" misconduct existed when he reported the incident to JVP.
Disagree. McQuery was simply passing the buck. A 28-year-old man knows that when you see a child being raped, you stop it and then report it to the authorities. He did neither, fearing it would cost him his job.
-
Disagree. McQuery was simply passing the buck. A 28-year-old man knows that when you see a child being raped, you stop it and then report it to the authorities. He did neither, fearing it would cost him his job.
What part do you disagree with? The part where I said people knew about it and didn't do anything, or the part about putting the child's interests last by not going to police?
If McQuery was looking out solely for his interests, he would never had said anything to anyone. He did do something knowing it could cost him his job, but he never did anything that could have tarnished PSU Football.
-
I'm fairly certain that if I see someone having anal sex with a child in a shower that I have correctly identified a "pedophile." Maybe I'm just psychic that way.
False, again, McQuery never claimed to have seen anal sex and in both the grand jury testimony and Sandusky trail testified he didn't see exactly what went on but he was uncomfortable with it.
So its not black and white.....its white enough that immediate action needed to be taken(go to police) and let them handle it but there isn't the preponderance of evidence that everyone thinks there is.
-
So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?
-
So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?
+1. I have no idea what his point is either.
-
So what is your point, exactly? Do you have even have one? I've never seen someone so breathless to distinguish between whether a 28 year old man saw an older man's penis enter a boy's rectum or whether he merely saw the older man fondling the boy. Did you scour the official reports to find discrepancies between what the media is reporting and what has been said in testimony?
Well, yes, unlike most people here I read the Freeh report cover to cover. And my point is, this situation is not terribly different than other instances of serial molestation. Often its someone close to the perpetrator who seems something, often in the gray area, and has to rectify what they saw with what they "know" of, lets say Uncle John, and decide if they report. Often if people don't report, when "Uncle John" is uncovered, looking back all the signs were there but they weren't clear enough for anyone person to see. So when everyone screams about cover-up, based on the available information, its certainly a possibility, but it could also be a case of missed opportunities to put it all together.
So ultimately the media is doing everyone a disservice by leading the pitch fork and torch handout brigade making it so clear cut with false information.
Besides, what is your problem with knowing the truth? The facts I've corrected for you doesn't make the story any less heinous, Sandusky any less evil, the leadership at Penn State any less negligent. Just makes everything a lot more gray, and that's what real life is in these scenarios.
-
Exactly. Is there such a thing as a punishment that doesn't affect innocent people unfairly? What about when you and your buddy plan to go to the movies, but your buddy got grounded, and now you can't go?
What about all of the kids that grow up in poverty because their knucklehead fathers are sitting in prison instead of supporting them?
How about the fact that I have to pay taxes to feed and house said knuckleheads?
In all your examples, the innocent are punished as a by-product of punishing the guilty. The difference is that the NCAA punishment handed down ONLY punishes the innocent, since the guilty are (in theory) all gone already. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think the right action for the NCAA was to do nothing at all beyond perhaps barring all Penn State coaches during this period from coaching in the NCAA for x number of years or permanently. I think every one of those sonuva you-know-whats who knew what happened and chose not to act should be thrown in jail and fined to the fullest extent of the law, but this is an legal issue, not an NCAA issue.
If he was a chemistry professor would you force them to downgrade their chemistry facilities after they fired the professor and all his superiors?
-
In all your examples, the innocent are punished as a by-product of punishing the guilty. The difference is that the NCAA punishment handed down ONLY punishes the innocent, since the guilty are (in theory) all gone already. I know I'm in the minority here, but I think the right action for the NCAA was to do nothing at all beyond perhaps barring all Penn State coaches during this period from coaching in the NCAA for x number of years or permanently. I think every one of those sonuva you-know-whats who knew what happened and chose not to act should be thrown in jail and fined to the fullest extent of the law, but this is an legal issue, not an NCAA issue.
If he was a chemistry professor would you force them to downgrade their chemistry facilities after they fired the professor and all his superiors?
People keep using this word "innocent" to refer to the current players, coaches, students, etc., many of whom have - even since the Freeh report was released - come out in defense of a man who knowingly turned the other way while young children were being raped in his program's facilities and called him a "good man who made a simple mistake."
If you're going to characterize these people as "innocent," pray tell, how do you characterize the victims?
-
People keep using this word "innocent" to refer to the current players, coaches, students, etc., many of whom have - even since the Freeh report was released - come out in defense of a man who knowingly turned the other way while young children were being raped in his program's facilities and called him a "good man who made a simple mistake."
If you're going to characterize these people as "innocent," pray tell, how do you characterize the victims?
They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many? Wrongheaded? For sure. I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment. This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.
And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.
-
They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many? Wrongheaded? For sure. I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment. This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.
And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.
The University knowingly employed criminals and aided in covering up the crimes committed.
They should have gotten the death sentence.
-
They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many? Wrongheaded? For sure. I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment. This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.
And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.
Except that the existence of Penn State football created a sphere of influence that allowed Paterno and the University to allow and cover up Sandusky when he ANALLY RAPEd LITTLE BOYS.
Why is this so difficult?
-
They are innocent because those who remain at Penn State didn't commit any crime or cover up any crime. Since when are you guilty of a crime based on your opinion or your desire to support a man who has done a lot of good for many? Wrongheaded? For sure. I don't want sound like I am defending Paterno or those who covered up this mess in any way because what they did is reprehensible, but those who are being punished by the NCAA had nothing to do with any of the crimes that caused the punishment. This punishment does not hurt those who are truly responsible in any way.
And while the victims are innocent, I don't think killing Penn State football isn't going to help them in any meaningful way.
So you hold rape victims in the same regard as the people who sympathize, protect, hide and facilitate their rapists?
The people who revere and defend Joe Paterno even after knowing how culpable he was are the same ones who created and perpetuate the environment that consciously allowed those crimes to happen for over a decade. They may be innocent of the crime in the eyes of the law, but they aren't "innocent" of responsibility.
The only "innocents" being wrongly affected by these sanctions are the ones who are distancing themselves from Joe Paterno & PSU football... by my count, that number is zero
The NCAA had every right to step in and sanction the university. And that's who they sanctioned... the university. No student athlete was sanctioned. No student was sanctioned. No professor was sanctioned. The reason any of them may be affected by the NCAA's sanctions is because they choose to be -- nobody's forcing anyone to stay in Happy Valley.