It's not going to happen. PSU will not give up football for a year, it would punish kids that had nothing to do with this. The bad guys are dead, waiting for trial, or waiting for sentencing. I do think PSU is going to have to pay a lot of money to the victims, which they should. It is a very ugly scandel but it did not give them an advantage on the football field, it did however put a black spot on a 1st class program that will never go away.
Bob Costas on Meet the Press: 'Death penalty' for PSU football.
...would almost certainly allow all current players to transfer with no loss of eligibility. At least that would be my presumption. David Gregory touched on the topic and Costas seemed to suggest that it would be tough rocks for those Penn State players. That seemed to me to indicate that Costas hadn't really thought about the subject seriously. Because I am quite certain that all of the then-current SMU Mustangs were allowed transfer with full eligibility when their school got the death penalty.
You are correct.
No loss of eligibility sure, but forcing all those kids to leave the school they currently play for to go play somewhere else is still a punishment for the kids.
Additionally, you could take it a step further.
Hypothetically, let's say PSU gets the death penalty and their players can transfer and play immediately. One of our Michigan Dlineman has been working hard and has been dedicated to our program for years and he finally has won the starting job. All of a sudden a better PSU Dlineman comes in and takes his starting role.
Maybe it would make the Michigan team better. However, that original Michigan player may feel as if he has been punished for what Joe Paterno did some 700 miles away at a different school while he was in pre-school learning to read. Yeah the team and the best man starts should trump this, but would that not be a natural human emotion deep down to feel punsihed in this situation?
consequences. The argument that a Michigan player might be hurt by suspending PSU football is hardly a reason not to suspend PSU football.
Oh, I completely agree. Just adding a different perspective.
...or is it?
If the Michigan player is that good, then why would the coaches extend a scholarship to a transferring PSU player?
If he still isn't that good of a player, then he should understand the coaches extending a scholarship from an incoming transfer.
This was my thinking as well. Sure, the kid may have the option to transfer, but finding a new school, one with a scholarship, that fits your needs, location, etc. is immensely impractical for an entire team, especially when many of them probably chose PSU for reasons not completely related to football.
I mean, UM athletes pick the school for both the sports and (I hope) for the rest the school has to offer, and I would hope leaving just to play another year would be a difficult decision.
Unfortunately, shit happens. There were plenty of honest, hardworking people at Enron and Lehman brothers who were left unemployed as a result of immoral people at the top. Doesn't mean the companies shouldn't have been punished
The companies weren't punished. The SEC (the agency, not the conference) didn't force the companies into bankruptcy as punishment for the malfeasance of the brass. They went bankrupt on their own thanks to the actions of individuals that were punished.
I don't get this, really. There is literally nobody left at Penn State who covered up for Jerry Sandusky. People always talk about the death penalty for PSU because it would be "justice" and such. Not one person who covered up for Jerry Sandusky would be hurt by this. There is a failure to separate the nebulous idea of "the program" from the individuals involved.
I am torn on the whole death penalty issue. I have said from the beginning (well before the Freeh reoprt come out) that sanctions need to be placed on the university. The 5 major players are gone, but the culture still remains. The culture of the university, the alumni/fans, and even the community of State College. The clamor of the PSU community to keep the Paterno statue up is pressuring the board to not act. I was appalled when one of trustees actually said: "We don't want to jump the gun again," the trustee said. "When we did that in November, look where we ended up. . ." (from ESPN). The culture that football is everything is still there and the push from the outside will do nothing but stregnthen their resolve.
I'm very aware that this culture is quite prevalent throught most traditional football powers (the girl that committed suicide over the alleged rape at ND was texted "You don't F*** with ND Football"). I would hope that no other school would have a football culture that would allow this to happen, but I never thought there would be any at all.
Take a look at this article written by a PSU alum, employee, child of two PSU emplyees, and a life long resident of State College. It encompesses how I feel about the situation, but from an insiders prospective.
See, I think the argument of "football is king" is weak here. Yes, for people who were directly involved in the football program or who stood to lose their jobs if this came out, yes they protected Sandusky. But this wasn't Happy Valley residents hiding the raping of children. Sure, they like football there, but I've seen no evidence that football is any "more" king there than at most college campuses (A2 included).
If you are wondering how sick the "Football is Everything" culture is at PSU, just head on over to BlackShoeDiaries and read some of the FanPosts and Threads around this scandal.
There are blaming everyone EXCEPT JoePa (even after the Freeh Report! - they think Freeh was bought!!!), including the parents of the victims!!!
This is something that needs to be destroyed so that it can be rebuilt. Without the death penalty, I doubt that anything will really change at PSU.
What's really interesting about that is one of the biggest Paterno defenders is actually a Tennessee fan (or is much better at pretending than RDT was).
situation, many of the players were actively involved in the cheating aspect of the program. The current players of Penn State are as innocent as you can be in this whole sordid affair.
No one is saying the players aren't innocent. How are people not getting this?
It's just that a lot of people are directing their (understandable) anger and disgust in their direction. Talking about blowing up their team and completely rearranging their lives. We say its unfair how oversigning screws everything up for a small handful of kids, but now popular opinion is for doing it to an entire team well after the fact.
They are sending the message that it is ok for programs to cover up crimes as long as those involved are gone when the crimes are discovered.
Like it or not officials involved with the school and the football program hid key details that could have prevented serious crime. This matter has grave consequences.
You are just as guilty as Joe Paterno of putting football above crime and victims. He turned a blind eye to crimes because it would his program. You argue for a contuation of this program because it could hurt college football in general and the Big 10/PSU in particular.
You have virtually no argument that business will be conducted without distraction at PSU next season. It is far more beneficial to suspend the program (thus sending the right message to other schools) and allow the transfers immediately then it would be to have those kids that do want out to wait a year and deal with all the distraction.
None of the current athletes have anything to do with the scandal but if they play then they will experience 100% of the distraction.
"You are just as guilty as Joe Paterno of putting football above crime and victims."
I don't agree with this at all. I can't speak for who you are responding to, but that goes too far.
No punishment is going to fit the crime. The leaders will likely see prison time though. I think a lot of people want revenge on PSU because the crimes are so shocking.I think a postseason ban will be the likely punishment on the program. To me that seems like the probable "compromise".
Revenge isn't the right word. I hope "justice" is done so that no citizen with something to lose or if difficulties may arise would see it more beneficial to cover up a heinous crime than to do what is right.
If the Freeh report is accurate then Paterno put his program above the consequences of having to answer for a rapist being associated with his program. Those who advocate life as usual with the PSU program present the idea that College Football is more important than the victims. I have no clue how any poster on this board with one breathe could argue that the program shouldn't be punished and with the next breathe call for a removing of the statue of the man who lead the program for the past 40+ years.
There is absolutely no way you can continue the football program without opening up wounds and reliving the details of these crimes, not only in our eyes but also in the eyes of the victims families.
Shut it down and let time pass to help the healing process and then bring it back.
Those who advocate life as usual with the PSU program present the idea that College Football is more important than the victims.
That's a ridiculous thing to say. With that mindset you could suggest any punishment you like up through dropping an actual nuclear bomb on the campus and then say "this is for the victims, you're putting (X) above the victims if you disagree." I'm not kidding, I have seen people use this line to justify closing the entire school permanently. And lumping everyone in with guys like Schultz and Curley is unfair at best.
Is all I gotta say. Bush was gone for how many years? And PC was gone too.
that Costas hadn't given it some thought, at least not in your characterization. That would have been my response, too--tough.
Agreed. I think Costas is one of the smartest people in sports broadcasting. His opinions are always well reasoned and informative. I was surprised for him to argue this point of view but I disagree entirely. The legal system is where these matters are hashed out and I see no reason the NCAA should be involved in what was at its heart a legal matter. Plus, to do so would be punishing people with no involvement in the crime or its cover up. All parties involved in either have been dismissed from the university or now sit in prison. Hammering PSU just hurts the players, students, fans. I don't think they should have to pay a penalty.
No one needs college football. There is no actual harm that will come to the fans if a football program is suspended.
There was actual harm that came to the boys involved in the matter. Crimes that Paterno did not report because he was worried that harm might come to his program.
Admittedly I haven't read the most recent documents in this case and am not fully up to date but I don't see what the death penalty would solve here. What the death penalty would really hurt would be the current players, students and other athletes who play sports funded by psu football. Also, this is really a legal matter and the focus should be kept on helping the victims and bringing awareness to this crime and crimes like it. Imposing a death penalty on psu would shift that focus to the future of the football program which at the end of the day isn't directly relevant to helping the victims.
And did Lavell Blanchard deserve those sanctions at UM? Sorry, that's life and life isn't always fair.
Sidenote, he was an awesome dude. He was one of the first people I actually met at UofM. I came from a school in NYC, where virtually no one went to U of M, so during a summer tour and ultimately orientation, I ran into him at the Union and he welcomed me to campus (informally.) I had no idea who he was until someone else told me.
I'm sorry, I can't take many of these arguments in favor of giving them a one year ban/death penalty seriously. The arguments are terribly shortsighted and the analogies to other teams are totally pointless because the effects would be drastically different. Here are some of my reasons:
1. How in the world does suspending the football team send a message to anybody? Who would receive this message that hasn't already? You don't think public officials subject to reporting requirements across the country are already pretty damn aware of what might happen now? The scandal is referenced on every Michigan site I visit, every facebook newsfeed, millions of twitter account, and every news source. Is some administrator out there going to decide to turn somebody in because they are now afraid that their school might lose a season of football? NO! They would turn somebody in because otherwise they would go to "pound you in the ***" prison and have their entire name, family, reputation, and life ruined. I think that would motivate me a little more than not having a season of football.
2. The references to USC, OSU, and Michigan basketball are completely different for many reasons. First, let's talk about punishing the innocent. OSU, USC, and Michigan lost out on a season or two of hanging up a banner by not being able to compete in the post season. Big deal. It sucks and all, but what does that really mean in the grand scheme of things? USC and OSU are still pulling in great recruits, still playing and winning games, and their players are still playing for the school, team, and coach of their choice, and they still get a degree from the school of their choice and are still top NFL prospects regardless of what Reggie Bush or Terrell Pryor did.
Fast forward to PSU and them losing a season or getting a death penalty of indefinite duration. Let's look at the effects. The players would likely have to stay and give up their love of football or transfer. Staying would kill or severly damage any NFL prospects as they would not play for at least a year. Leaving would deprive them of credits (usually), knowledge of the scheme and technique they learned, comfort, likely proximity to home for many recruits, relationships with people at PSU whether friends or girlfriends, a good degree, choice of education, the major of choice (for some), and the list just goes on. Players that aren't established would likely have little to no chance to get an equal scholarship opportunity, many having to go to MAC or lower division schools. The harm to the players would be IMMENSE. It would serve no purpose. And what about the new coaching staff to boot? Some of these guys just came from other schools or the NFL for the chance to not have a job for something they literally had nothing to do with at all? That makes sense. Did Tressel get fired for his role? Yes, but he was the cause. Same for a guy like Fisher. This would be similar to Tommy Amaker getting fired because a penalty was handed out 10 years later.
3. Lastly, stop trying to say tattoos and houses didn't effect the play on the field any more than covering up a 15 year old non-football player related scandal. That's just silly. For starters, the coaches at those schools would have (and likely did) cover up evidence of these things to keep their best players eligible (Pryor being the perfect example). This won games. The promise of these extra benefits brought in players. This won games. The argument that revealing a sex scandal helped recruiting doesn't hold much water when the new coach has already recruited a top 10-15ish class thus far. Even if it did matter, we're comparing affirmative acts relating to actual players (like giving out money) to omissions relating to a former coach and non-players. Not even remotely similar.
P.S. About SMU. Did players get punished there for the acts of others? Yes. But let's be honest -- the players, coaches, fans, and even opposing fans ALL KNEW what was going on there. It was plain as day. It's not like their recruits were shocked it happened. Even those guys who didn't receive benefits would be idiots to not know it. How could a PSU player have known this or had any responsibility for this in any possible way? They wouldn't.
IMO if they were hiding this, what else were they hiding or doing. One year would be an easy ban.. I think they should give up 1 game for every child, and then donate the money they would have gotten to the victim.
How are they gonna donate the money they would have gotten, if they dont play the game and get the money?
And maybe they were hiding other things, maybe they werent. You cant assume just because they hid one thing, that they were hiding a bunch of other things too.
1) How in the world does suspending the football team send a message to anybody? Who would receive this message that hasn't already?
The culture of dogmatic reverence at PSU provided an atmosphere for which these atrocities could go on with impunity. This punishment would destroy that culture at PSU. It sends a message to the PSU community and to every other football/basketball factory in the NCAA. Much of the PSU community hasn't recieved the message. In addition, the consequences clearly weren't enough for the 5 persons involved, primarily b/c need for program success trumped the potential consequences. If staying silent has consequences for the program you are trying to protect, then perhaps their decision making process would have been different.
2) I'm not goning to address most of this b/c A) I don't give a shit about any of the current players/staff/fans of PSU, and B) I don't think they should be a serious consideration. I'll only address 2 points:
The harm to the players would be IMMENSE. Replace harm with inconvienence.
Also, no one is gaurenteed the right to be a D-1 football players at PSU. It's a privledge. I'm OK with temporarily suspending a privledge exclusive to 100-150 already extrememly provledged individuals.
3) OSU covered up benefits to the program in order to protect the program. PSU covered up what was a huge issue that would certainly negatively affect the program in order to protect the program.
PS: according to many, a lot of people thought Sandusky had an inappropriate relationship with children. There were a lot of people, including that janitor who were not all that surprized that Sandusky was diddling little boys.
So you're saying the entire psu community is at fault for creating a culture where this could happen? Virtually none of the psu fans knew about this. If you were trying to punish a murder, would you punish the community for fostering conditions that allowed this man to become a murderer or the individual his self?
not the entire community. Just many in the AD.
I would would certainly punish the community by restricting some privleges (not unalienable rights) that contributed to or enabled or sustained the worng doing. It's not unlike a cult leader in Utah or somewhere who sanctions or conseals murders/molestations while the community surronding him/her provides a culture of (unknowing) support. Suppose the cult benefitted from the financial gains of a casio or something. Would I be OK with the casino operations being suspended temporarily? You bet.
(this is all my opinion here) we're not talking about the Gaming Commission shutting down the casino. We're talking about a national religious association ( assuming the cult was based on religion) saying, "suspend the casino for a year or two or you don't get to be in our club any more".
Who gave Paterno his power? The PSU community. He had the power to tell the president, the AD, the VP in charge of campus police to shove it. It they were to defy him, they were toast, and they knew it.
Paterno got his power from his reputation, his wins, the outspoken alumni, the big donors that adored him. He got his power from the very same place RR lost his: the community of the particular program. When was this all released? After he won the game that put his win total past Eddie Robinson. When was he "fired"? After he won the game that put his win total past Eddie Robinson. Why won't they remove the statue? The BoT is afraid of fallout from the PSU community. They (the PSU community) gave Paterno his power and Paterno abused it.
If the fans knew about this at the time, I'm sure they would have been appalled. Yet, there were many PSU faithful that defnded Sandusky until they couldn't anymore. They still defend Paterno and talk about how the Freeh report was poor reporting, there are many holes in the theories, and that everybody is out to get them. They still say Paterno "made a mistake" and that he was bullied by his superiors into not talking to the authorities in 2001. There are some that blame the parents (most were from broken homes) or the kids themselves (they didn't say anything because they got to go to football games and stand on the sidelines for free) for not noticing or speaking up. Yes, the community gave Paterno his power, power to the point that no one could keep him in check.
BTW - I don't think PSU is the only place were this was/is happening.
Plus those asshats in Happy Valley are still clueless, as evidenced by their clear unwillingness to take down that joke of a statue. They need to be bludgeoned by the NCAA.
would be sufficient.
I agree, except they should have to move the statue to the front lobby of the AD for the rest of eternity.
by covering up the scandal, not as much the reputation of the whole school. To them, a lot of their identity was wrapped up in the Joe Paterno, squeaky clean persona. Having the Sandusky truth come out would have (and has) destroyed that. So, to me, this is an argument for levying a stiff penalty that impacts the football program. Otherwise, PSU will just pay some big sums to the vicitms families out of their endowment, and life will go on as before in Happy Valley. A strong message needs to be sent to PSU and all of college football that protecting your football program at the expense of peoples' welfare won't be tolerated. Whether that's a one year ban, two year ban, multi-year bowl ban, or significant scholarship reductions or a combination of things needs to be decided.
Whie this was a cover up to protect the football name and PSU name, it had nothing whatsoever to do with helping PSU win games. It had nothing to do with competitive balance. Nothing to do with current or former players. Therefore the NCAA has little to do with this, and as I've argued, should have little to do IMO. In fact, a recent ESPN story quoted a former NCAA lawyer in compliance who stated that even if the NCAA wanted to do something, there is likely little they can do.
The Clery Act could be the real hammer here and it is a Dept. of Education enforced mandate. It can result in the loss of ANY federal funds by PSU. That includes research grants/awards or even Pell grants and other federal student aid to PSU students.
Talk about trying to recover, imagine having to recruit even general students with the minimal ability to obtain financial aid or graduate stipends.
win games has any relevance. Crimes or moral mis-behavior committed by the football staff or administrators (on behalf of the program) are cause enough to punish the program.
Secondly, one could argue that PSU did gain a competitive advantage by hiding very damaging information and activity, that, if it had become public, would have hurt the program.
Having said that, I don't think a death penalty is likely or justified, but I would like to see all wins vacated for fourteen years (at least on Joe Paterno's record), orders to take down the statue and perhaps even some loss of scholarships.
That's right, logical reasoning is in fact overrated on the internet.
I don't know why all of a sudden people are concerned about innocent players being punished. That's always happened.
Every school that has ever been sanctioned by the NCAA can claim that innocent players were collateral damage. Every Michigan basketball player from the middle of last decade was punished for the actions of players who played five or more years before them. PSU may not deserve the death penalty, but this is certainly not the reason why.
Why do people have trouble with the idea that NCAA has never been an organization capable of punishing the guilty? The players just go pro (Pryor) or are long gone by the time the NCAA arrives. The coaches still walk away with their money (Tressel) or find new jobs (Caroll).
The current crop of players does suffer int hat they have to either stick around on a crippled team or transfer (normally without penalty). That is the way it has always been. Except in the rare case when you get some freshman who the NCAA can sanction and he's too young to bolt to the pros.
The PSU of killing off the PSU Athletic Department is to make the statement "When you try to cover up things like to protect your cash cow program, we will find out about it eventually and do what the Romans did to Carthage to your department." It's about setting the precedent and forcing the University to take the economic hit for noncompliance, that is what the NCAA has always done.
We want to walk away with something that results in every AD in America having the local number for child services burned into his brain and mass incentive to expand efforts to insure compliance with reporting policies.
Both NCAA and DOE are really in un-chartered territory here with this issue, and it’s anybody’s guess how far they will go.
Punishing the innocent for crimes of the guilty unfortunately will always occur. PSU will also have to deal with its image, civil lawsuits/awards for quite awhile, and compounded by whatever action the agencies decide is fitting. You feel sorry for the institution, its staff and students. ( I know I do; yet I have family there, including on the current athletic staff.)
But again in this case with PSU and considering how vile and severe the crimes (not violations but actual crimes); “If not now,… When?”
As far as not punishing innocent people, in this case the players and new coaches... Don't most punishments in some way indirectly punish innocent parties?
Example: A guy goes to prison for whatever reason, well didn't his 5 year old innocent boy just lose a father? Didn't his innocent wife just lose a source of income?
Another Example: A guy just getting by on mimimum wage gets a $100 traffic ticket and the points on his license increase the cost of his Auto-Insurance. His innocent kid now has to get less Christmas gifts.
Final Example: After 9-11, students could no longer go in on a weekday into the stadium and run around on the field and up the stands for exercise. On game days a whole list of seemingly harmless items were banned.
Maybe poor examples, but it seems like one could argue that innocent people are commonly indirectly hit by the punishments of the guilty.
I am not sure what the penalty should be, but maybe a loud message needs to be sent whether or not innocent people are influenced. But, I would prefer to not drastically effect players there.
We do punish to reform the offender and to prevent others from doing it. Maybe the punsihment needs to be severe to prevent others from looking the other way again.
I don't disagree with your analogies in theory, but the difference here is that the point of punishment in these cases is deterrence. You put the robber in jail because you want to stop him from doing it again, and to keep him off the streets. Same with the speeder - he needs to slow down, and too many points and tickets and he loses his license.
**Note - I am not saying that incarceration actually addresses the dual concerns of punishment and limiting recidivism.
Even the response to 9/11 has been about (at least ostensibly) limiting the potential for the same/similar crime occurring. But with PSU, the crime that was committed is highly unlikely to occur again. Sexual assault of children isn't a football problem; it's a problem of one man and the inability/unwillingness of those around him to stop it. Yes, punishing PSU football would tell other programs not to cover up heinous crimes, but my guess is that message has already been heard loud and clear. This isn't paying players or skirting recruiting concerns - sexually assaulting boys in shower rooms is not a recurring problem in CFB.
Don't think for a second that the NCAA and the DOE aren't going to take their pound of flesh.
Department of Energy? Department of Education? And what pound of flesh would the NCAA be able to extract? They've already fired virtually everyone associated with the scandal, and barring the football team from playing this year might send a message but certainly wouldn't do much beyond punish innocent people. The NCAA was designed to punish schools that broke their rules; we have laws and the judicial process to punish people for crimes against society. If the NCAA wants to jump into that realm, then I hope they are ready for all of the consequences.
Department of Education. In cases like these, everybody gets their share. I work in a heavily regulated environment, much more so than collegiate athletics, but here's the way it typically works. The company (replace with university in this case) fires everyone at the director level and above who was related to the citation. This is only the first step, if there were actions resulting in criminal charges, this will proceed as well, but it isn't really part of the process. Then, they begin a process known as "disgorgement." Disgorgement is a series of fines and forced activities, etc designed to strip the company from profits it may have earned while engaging in unethical behavior. I am consulting at a company right now that is being disgorged - I'm part of the disgorgement. Disgorgement for a university is easily restriction of public funds. Another option is forced outsourcing of various departments (compliance) because the regulating body has determined that the existing culture is not robust enough to deal with the demands of current regulatory environment.
The point is, egregious dereliction forces the hand of the regulating body, whether they want to or not, they HAVE to.
Thank goodness PSU is looking after the welfare of blameless kids. (/capital S) This argument has no merit.
I think there's a strong argument that this did give Penn State an advantage on the field.
There were two major wrongdoings here: (1) the molestation of young boys and (2) the attempts to cover it up.
Realistically, the molestation didn't give Penn State an advantage on the field compared to what would have been without the molestations. I think the cover-up is different. If this story had gotten out, people would have been fired, players and recruits would have been freaked out (it wouldn't have been in the semi-distant past as it is now), this would have been an enormous distraction for the program, etc. Those things probably would have harmed Penn State on the field.
In that context (compared to what would have been), I think the cover-up did give Penn State a significant advantage - or, more accurately, prevented them from having to suffer legitimate consequences for their actions.
I completely agree with this. If covering this up had no benefit, why do it? Clearly, Paterno, et al felt that this getting out would hurt the program, so much so that they let a criminal go unpunished. Obviously they felt there was plenty to gain from a football standpoint to keeping it hush hush.
This is just like tatgate but on a much larger scale. The NCAA wasn't upset with OSU for having a few players get tattoos in exchange for their swag. The NCAA was upset with Tressell and Co. for knowing about it and keeping it hush hush.
A coaching staff and administration covering up any act to avoid punishment (whether it be from the NCAA, the police, the court of public opinion, etc.) should be a punishable act itself, by the NCAA.
But again, tatgate and even the SMU situations were far closer to the outcome on the field than the Sandusky situation. Selling jerseys for tattoos or paying players gave them a competitive advantage; keeping a child molester protected from the law and avoiding the bad press that such an admission would bring to the unviersity, while heinous, did not directly involve the players on the field or recruiting to the same extent.
I know people want to see the perpetrators punished, and I think they will - in civil courts, they are going to be paying millions of dollars to the victims and will undoubtedly take a hit in recruiting, public perception, and even how the degree is viewed by some in the business world. This will likely stain the university and its alumni for years. Shutting down the football program to extract one more pound of flesh, though, is merely punitive.
It's always been the assumption that they did it "to protect the program." I think it was done to protect Sandusky. I don't think the thought was "this guy is a complete monster but if word of this gets out, it will hurt Penn State." Remember, Sandusky was an absolute, untouchable pillar of the community, best friends with Paterno, the whole works. They talked about the "humane" thing to do, meaning, humane toward Sandusky. People can't just flip their thinking from "he's been a wonderful guy for the last 30 years" to "he's an evil predator."
I think the thought was "we've known this guy for ages and he's a wonderful human being, it wouldn't be right to kick him aside and besides, it's probably just a little horseplay anyway." I submit that there are very few people who, if there is someone they have the utmost admiration and respect for, wouldn't feel conflicted if presented evidence of that person being a child molester. Cognitive dissonance. Was the potential for bad publicity a thought? I'm sure it was. But not as much as "the humane thing" toward this guy we've known for 30 years and couldn't possibly be doing that stuff.
I've never heard that Sandusky and Paterno were best friends. I've heard that it was just the opposite. Where did you hear that they were?
I was exaggerating a bit. But I think you get the point.
Many many people, when faced with the information they had about a guy they thought they had known as a wonderful man for 30 years, would in fact be very conflicted, and I think the emails show this. I don't justfy it at all, not one bit. But I understand how it happened. They in fact likely wondered most of all--"what will this do to his reputation if we are wrong and report this?" Child pornography and child molestation never ever leaves your reputation, even if wrongly accused. Again, they were wrong not to report it, and they should have, and not doing so ruined lives. But it's simply not as black and white as the internet would have you believe--yes, this was awful, that is black and white, no shades of grey there--but they simply had trouble believing it about a man they thought they knew. To their discredit.
And the NCAA NEVER punishes the current players for the program's past sins.
And everyone always thinks it's completely OK that current players are punished for the program's past sins.
I agree with most of your post. However, I don't agree with the sentence re: an advantage on the football field.
If PSU had come clean in 2001 (that it had covered up the 1998 incident), how many players would have still gone to PSU?
According to Scout
- in 2002, PSU had the 16th best class
- in 2003, PSU was unranked
- in 2004, PSU had the 12th best class
I think it's reasonable to think that a scandal like that, in 2001, would have affected recruiting for at least 3 years.
Again, even though I don't think the NCAA or PSU should institute the death penalty, I do think that PSU did benefit by covering up this scandal for 14 years.
how would a ban punish the current players? The goal of any colligete sport is to provide an education free (or significanly reduced) cost to the student? How would cancelling the season for a year or two "punishment"? If you want to call a free ride to a Big Ten college a "punishment".
We need to get back to the reason football and other sports exists: to provide an opprotunity for athletically gifted students the opportunity to get a "free-ride" to a great education. None of the football players who decide to stay will be "punished" as long as they continue to receive their scholarship.
If they want to play football, they will be given the opprotunity to transfer without penalty. So again, how is this a "punishment"?
There is always residual damage from any punitive measure. A father car jacks someone at gun point. Should he not go to jail because his child will suffer? I agree Penn State should suspend football for a year, and should take that statue down. For ONCE, Penn State needs to unsolicitously demonstrate that it is going to put the victims before its damned football program, and not wait for civil law suits to do so. It MUST punish itself if its football program has any hope of future goodwill from the nation outside Penn State alums.
The kids who pay the "price"? These are elite football players who can easily transfer to a dozen different programs who would be happy to have them. I feel zero remorse or pity for them - they are elite and privilaged athletes with several options.
When I try to take a step back and look at this objectively, I still can't get over the fact that this is a legal issue, not an athletics issue. The university should be punished, the administrators should be charged, but the NCAA should not be handing down punishments to the football program.
I'm sure the NCAA will do something (the cynic in me says it's just for show), but I think the current situation falls well outside their purview of regulating college athletics.
This has everything to do with football. The coverup was done because of football.
I guess I should clarify. When I say "it has nothing to do with football," I mean that in a competitive sense. The scandal was an administrative one, it had to do with the football program in as much as the administrators wanted to protect the image and reputation of the program (and by extension, the school). But it didn't actually have anything to do with the playing of the game itself, therefore it's not the responsibility of the NCAA. There are other institutions responsible for punishing PSU.
The distinction you just made - paying PLAYERS and performing academic fraud for the PLAYERS - is the one I think others are making against the death penalty. Sure, this would have been a PR nightmare for the university, but the raping of children (and I can't believe I'm saying this) didn't provide the PSU teams with the type of competitive advantage that keeping players eligible and paying for them to join your team does. The argument can be made that having Sandusky on the sideline versus a replacement is an advantage, and while I agree somewhat, it still doesn't feel as connected to the play on the field as the other major violations mentioned. It's a legal issue; let the courts figure it out.
Okay, where were you when petitioning against the OSU sanctions? They were not paying the players. Tressel, to a FAR lesser extent, did the exact same thing as Paterno. He received information that would have been incendiary to the football program and he sat on it.
The fact that raping boys is not against the NCAA rules should not come into play. The simple fact is that OSU got torched for sitting on information. You think they get a bowl ban and loss of scholarships if Tressel finds out and immediately turns over the information? Prostitutes are illegal. Should the Colorado case have been dismissed by the NCAA so it could be settled in court?
Again, the difference here is that both of the cases you mentioned involved players receiving impermissible benefits that affected where they played or used school equipment. Tressel sat on information that his current players were trading school-financed materials for services, which is against NCAA bylaws. Similarly, the CU situation had to do with prostitutes being sent by a former school recruiter to young athletes to entice them to play for the Buffs, also a violation of the NCAA rules.
I'm not trying to be glib, but I doubt there is any bylaw in the NCAA rulebook that holds the University liable for legal transgressions performed by a staff member that do not directly affect student athletes. I'm all for those involved to be punished by the court system, but there is a reason why we have distinctions between groups like the NCAA and the court system - each has it specialty. The Ohio courts never filled lawsuits against the OSU players for what they did because there is nothing wrong with people exchanging goods for services; that the basis for all economic systems. Similarly, the CU situation involved the police to the extent that prostitutes were hired to ahve sex with potentially-undertake boys, a crime. They didn't step in to uphold NCAA bylaws.
My point is, shutting down the PSU program for something that is not a violation of NCAA rules is a bad idea. My guess is that the NCAA will come down as hard as they can, but if they force PSU to sit out a year I will not agree with it.
People on this board need to get over the fact that not wanting PSU to be bulldozed by a bad ruling doesn't mean people are condoning what happened here.
Covering up the rape of children instead of reporting it saved them from the negative PR, hit in recruiting and possibly JoePa getting pushed out. I think they were only 6-6 or something the season before in 1998. If you can't see how a coverup was a competitive advantage I cannot continue this discussion.
In 1998 PSU went 9-3, they then went 10-3. 2000 the went 5-7
Again, I'm not saying that keeping quiet didn't help PSU hide from bad PR; it would be silly to think that admitting your school has a child rapist on its staff is a "good" PR decision. But explain to me, beyond specious arguments of negative PR working against them, how this is some massive advantage on the field? Sure, it could have hurt recruiting, but maybe PSU immediately admitting to learning of this issue and addressing it would have been viewed as a positive, a school addressing an issue quickly and efficiently. Who knows, maybe parents would look at the school in a positive light had they spoken out quickly. My point is that unlike paying players to come to your school or allowing them to gain impermissible benefits while at the school and playing for you, the issue with Sandusky has a less clear effect on the product on the field.
But they remained silent, and that is a horrible decision that should haunt all involved until they die. But you still haven't shown me any real evidence that not saying anything made PSU a better team on the field. Sure, Sandusky was a good DC, but PSU is good for many reasons beyond is DC, and may well survive the loss fo Joe Paterno.
All I'm calling for is not carpet-bombing a bunch of innocent students and a largely-innocent university because a small number of biased individuals made horrible decisions. If you can't see how that might be a good idea, then whatever "discussion" you think your post was involved in doesn't interest me either.
I will explain that to you as soon as you explain that, if it had nothing to do with a competitive advantage on the field, why everyone in the athletic department decided to cover it up? If this didn't make them a better team on the field, then why was there even a need to cover it up?
I've never met a tattoo that had anything to do with the playing of the game itself.
But the body attached to that tattoo, who feels he is above the law because he sold/traded goods given to him for playing a sport for said tattoos, and who then tells others that if you come to OSU you too can partake in this illegal practice, sure do.
And so is the body attached to a recruit, who feels he is safe walking the halls of the PSU football facility while unbeknownst to him there is a child rapist just hanging around. Let's not kid ourselves - free tattoos probably don't move the meter as much as finding out an administration that is supposed to be molding high school age boys into good men is harboring this kind of activity.
By this logic, of course, shouldn't every time we hear about any crime perpetrated by coaches or players that is initially "handled" internally or gets swept under the rug rise to the same level? Do a google search on the number of times players are allowed to beat up other students, possibly sexually assault women, rob from others, etc. and you then hear about how coaches allowed it to happen to varying extents because they wanted to win.
The issue here, it is sad to say, is the extreme depravity of the offenses perpetrated by Sandusky. If he had robbed a couple of banks or committed credit card fraud and Paterno let it slide, I doubt people would say to blow the team apart. That's my issue with all of the rending of cloth going on here - the level of the crime has overshadowed everyhting else.
...yes it did. They covered it up for the image. And you know damn well when they think about the image, they think about recruiting.
I suppose I understand what you are saying. They didn't cover up cheating to gain a competitive advantage on the field, they covered up crimes, or (at the time) suspected criminal behavior, by a member of the football staff in order to save face at the university. Similar to the way known predators in schools or (no offense) the catholic church have been shuffled around quietly in the past instead of being publicly outed and criminally prosecuted.
For decades, PSU sold the "Grand Experiment" as part of its recruiting pitch. Covering up this scandal was essential to keeping that fiction going. If it turned out that their 30-year DC was a child molester, how could JoePa credibly tell any recruit that he was doing things the right way?
We can't know for sure because we can't go back in time and try a control test where PSU doesn't cover up, but my suspicion is that they were more successful from 2002-2011, with Paterno and the myth of stability he brought, over how they would have done if Sandusky's crimes had come to light. Would every player that came to PSU over that decade have done so if he knew about Sandusky? I'd bet some recruits' parents would have had second thoughts.
Well, it's clear that I'm in the minority here, which is fine. My opinion is that the legal system, the Department of Education, and civil litigation are more appropriate avenues for punishing PSU than the NCAA. But I totally understand the opposing view point; I guess I just see this as an issue that is higher up than the football program and beyond the responsibility of the NCAA.
the NCAA and the legal system?
and would and could happen in any organization in the country. If it happened at McDonalds would you say it was because of hamburgers?
I would say the coverup happened to protect the McDonald's brand and was done in an attempt to ensure the continued success of the McDonald's company.
even an attempt, to make McDonald's stop selling hamburgers.
Companies have been put out of business due to heavy fines or broken up before due to monopoly issues before. It runs the whole spectrum from the court ordered fines simply forcing the company into a structured bankruptcy to RICO being used to take everything.
Secondly, a university and McDonalds are not comparable on a 1 to 1 basis. Go submit a FOIA request to McDonalds and see what happens. Society has already decided we treat universities differently.
Killing football while allowing the Athletic Department to continue operates in other areas seems to run along those lines. Further more the Athletic Department and the overall Penn State University are public institutions which are granted a number of privileges since they're supposed to contribute to the public good. They don't pay taxes, they can use eminent domain, they can run their own police department, etc. When said public resource has a secondary function that causes harm to the public, why should it not be shut down?
They will lose millions, likely hundreds of millions, to civil lawsuits. That in and of itself is both a great harm to the institution and a deterrent to future misconduct.
Regarding the differences between Universities and companies, they are as you suggest. But as a practical matter, for my argument it is irrelevant. I wouldn't suggest any organization, university, corporation, pizza place, or club, be broken apart on an involuntary basis because of this matter.
They're not being broken apart. They're being forced to digest a culturual change. The institution still survives, UChicago is doing quite well for themselves sans football these days.
I'd argue they need a culturual change, so I see suspending them from the B1G for a bit and the NCAA nuking their football team down to Indiana levels of performance for a decade or so as a way to force that change. At the same time PSU remains in the CiC, gets all the academic and funding benefits that come with it and can continue to grow. Killing football al la SMU does not kill the school.
Basically football is a multi million dollar sport. Things like medical research grants are billion dollar fields (UM Hospital does 17 billion per year in treatment, plus billions more in grants IIRC). Killing the football program is a minor punishment to Penn State as a whole. It really makes life miserable for the Athletic Department, but that's fine because Athletic Directors get a clear message on what happens if you act like Curley. It also puts the University President in a bit of a bad spot, but again that's fine because it sends a message about acting like Spanier.
I don't know why you keep making this analogy. PSU is not a corporation. It does not sell a product for public consumption on its own. It takes part in a large venture (NCAA) by agreeing to that association's rules of conduct. A better analogy would be to compare PSU to a doctor or lawyer. You can't practice medicine or law without abiding by the standards set down. If you violate them, you can be suspended/disbarred from the profession.
If PSU gets the death penalty, its students can still play football on their own, or form a club. They just can't compete under the auspices of the NCAA.
But you are greatly mistaken if you don't think PSU football is a business
EDIT: OT but someone, not me, marked your post as trolling. Ridiculous.
The NCAA is the business here. It is the "McDonald's." PSU is basically one franchise in that business. It can't function on its own. An independent, barnstorming PSU football program wouldn't make any money. Only by participating under the NCAA auspices does it become a money-maker. In return, just as a McDonald's franchise has to follow company guidelines, it can't run afoul of the NCAA.
Which is why even ex-NCAA lawyers say it would be difficult for them to do anything (at least according to ESPN's report).
And those in charge must behave in an ethical manner. If this situation doesn't violate those rules, I don't know what does.
And so far they aren't nearly as confident as some of you guys are
has never taken place at a NCAA institution before. They're setting the precedent with every move they make. They have that clause in the NCAA contracts but they've never actually had to punish an instiution based on those guidelines. The rules exist, they're just not sure how to proceed.
"...because something so heinous has never taken place at a NCAA institution before."
Or at least has never been uncovered and had to have been dealt with before. Still, your point is valid.
How the NCAA handles this situation may have enough power to keep such a disgusting coverup from ever happening again. NO other program would try such a depraved manuver with the certainty of a death penalty hanging over their heads I would think.
I'm not sure what purpose that would serve. If you want them to lose money, just fine them.
...might be more effective in sending a message to other schoolsand deterring similar coverups than just a financial penalty. Whether it's to buy out a contract, build a new facility, or cover up some sin, it seems that major football programs don't have that much difficulty finding someone to write a check.
But it's hard to market and monetize a football team that doesn't exist.
I think the true deterent here is the hell PSU has been in, and will continue to reside in, in our society. They have lost millions of dollars in lost donations, (assumed) loss of applicants to the school, and a certain loss in prestige.
A financial penalty or penalty to the football program offers little deterent in comparison.
Penn State received the second highest amount in athletic donations ever this past year and applications are up as well.
Possibly their best recruiting in 15 years...
The donations do seem a little unique, but as the NYT article noted about overall applications, that may be due as much to the relatively low cost for attending PSU and the financial situation many people find themselves in. I'm not saying people are applying simply for this reason, but knowing that a major state school with some good academic programs is significantly less than other options probably doesn't hurt, especially given how more and more students are taking out loans to cover school when families are unable. I would also posit that at least some of these applications may be from individuals who find it "fun" or "edgy" to apply to PSU given the scandal. Let's see how many people actually accept offers to attend the school before proclaiming that this has not affected the quality of applicants.
and I don't necessarily disagree with any of them, just wanted to note that my post only noted that their applicant pool didn't drop in numbers, like the post above mine said they might have.
Good points by you. Nice to see some civility here.
Also, I think applications may be up a bit because of overall population growth. I remember reading somewhere that for the next year or two, the sheer number of college-aged kids will be at its peak, and thus more kids will be applying everywhere.
the NCAA does not consider first-hand knowlege of sexual assault to be a suitable on-campus learning activity. Please don't do it or we will punish your sports programs.
If it takes the NCAA to send that message there is no hope for society regardless of their actions.
It's not about the money. Leave that to the lawyers. This is about doing the right thing.
Doing the right thing for whom? Honest question - for the victims? I doubt they'll care if people unrelated to what happened to them can't play football? For the opposition? For the fans? - none of whom are guilty of the crimes, who didn't know it happened and are rightly appalled by knowing it occurred. Or for the media and the anonymous internet denizens who love to see people suffer to right some cosmic wrongs that the universe keeps score of?
PSU is going to be a shell of a football/school for years because of this from a PR standpoint, and I think that will be enough.
I'm not so sure about that. PSU apparently received a record (or near-record) amount of donations last year, and they currently are recruiting very well in football. They've taken a defiant stance, keeping the statue up and even selling JoePa merchandise, and it seems to be working for them. I'm personally shocked at the lack of outrage from within that community itself - I'm sure that if this happened in Ann Arbor, it'd be another story. I guess the cult of Paterno is so strong that even the events of the past year can't shake it.
I'm not disagreeing with the results in the short term, but in the long term my guess is that PSU feels the burn. It is one thing for people to think the events took place in a small vaccuum; with the report coming out basically indicting major swaths of the university's administrative staff, my guess is that there will be a backlash.
As for the statue, I suspect that will come down. It just brings up too many bad feelings for the university, and undue media pressure for a school on the rebound. As for recruiting, we've seen that it tends to take the hit the year after the major event occurs (see recruiting under RR), so the tail end of this year plus next year's recruiting may still feel the pain.
It's not over until it's over. The PSU community has far from swallowed the ugliness of this scandal. Honestly that stadium needs to go idle if not to rubble. Football just isn't anywhere near as important as the movers and shakers in this scandal took it. USC is suffering? PSU is well into recovery mode football wise. This needs to be reset.
Do the right thing by the victims past and future of child abuse. This is a teachable moment.
I wouldn't want Michigan football to exist if it meant raping one child. I think MSC understands that. PSU allowed multiple kids to be raped and the consequence is what? Football doesn't mean this to me. Football doesn't mean this period. That the new leadership at PSU doesn't get that makes me sick. It's time for a safety stand down.
Based on everyone we've actually learned, the number of people who knew what happened is incredibly small - a handful of people who direct knowledge who let this occur. This isn't a "culture" of football winning out - townspeople didn't allow this to happen. The police didn't fail to respond. This is a story of a small number of people with a vested interest allowing horrible crimes to occur, and then a small percentage of idiots on campus spouting off drunken ramblings and the media treating them as representative of everyone.
Again, I get that people are troubled by what happened at PSU, but blowing it up won't change anything. Nobody needs to be taught that child rape is bad; if anything, this shows the need for a better system to handle crime reporting. That can be accomplished without blowing up PSU.
"who didn't know it happened and are rightly appalled by knowing it occurred."
Not appalled at the occurrence itself, but at knowing it occurred.
Do you honestly think the vast majority of PSU fans (both in Happy Valley and outside) feel PSU is not guilty? Sure, there are always going to be some wackos who ignore reality, but from what I've seen the vast majority of the fans and alumni have come to grips with the atrocities that happened under Sandusky, and while they don't believe that it will forever stain their memories of PSU or its non-football stature, certainly understand the ramifications and what it means for the teams they cheered.
The media coverage has elevated the extremely small minority who continue to believe Paterno is a saint as a major block of the fandom, but that clearly isn't the case.
Whereas the Death Penalty would cause all the other schools in the B1G to lose money from our sharing arrangements for tickets unsold and games not aired on tv. Even moreso for Penn states traditional rivals Pitt and Syracuse. But Section 1 is right. Bob Costas is an expert in these things, lol.
but Pitt hasn't played Penn State since 2000, and PSU isn't on the schedule again until 2016.
I think the 1 year ban is more an ethical argument than a punative one.
Personally if this does come to pass, I think state & the ncaa should allow the athletes a pentalty free transfer or the option to stay and wait out the year for free (paid through their endowment)
.. that is, if any of their endowment is left after they get sued into the stoneage.
When SMU got the death penalty wasn't that punishing kids that had nothing to do with the charges?
No because they all got to transfer on the spot, or stay and enjoy their free education. And their eligibility remains intact.
were actively involved in the cheating process itself by being on payroll.
And many of them didnt.
Gotta say since moving to Pitt this winter i am shocked by the amount of people on the air from here who are for this. Alot of the arguement is joepa helped cover this up in 2001 when he was in the midst of catching bryants record of wins. Another one is that football is not as important as life and to suspend it for a year sends that message that their priorities are changing. I could care less but i find it ofd how many ppl here are for it. Its all thats on the radio every second.
The first modern death penalty for a major college football program was an interesting development in practice. I do recall, that after they let all the players transfer and the death penalty year was over, they found it hard to put together a team that wouldn't be physically endangered on the field. It was a bunch of freshmen and undersized recruits; I think that they were suffering under scholarship limits as well.
In any event, the one-year death penalty turned into about a 20-year demotion to minor college status.
The NCAA may have learned something; either that there can never again be a death penalty or else they need to do it differently.
That is true, but SMU and PSU are very different schools with very different athletic programs too, so id expect a much quicker recovery if this did somehow happen.
The adjustment from professional to amateur status may have had a bit to do with the decline in quality too.
A 20 year demolition to minor college status sounds about right for PSU's football program. The Big Ten should just boot them out anyways.
...is how adamant Bobby Bowden is about aggressive penalties for the program. He's an individual who would do well to stay out of this discussion.
and quick to attack Joe-pa. I'm not saying that Bowden is wrong, but people have to remember that Bowden has a pony in this race, considering it's Joe-pa that prevented Bowden from the all-time wins coaching record.
Man, I'd been thinking the same thing. Inasmuch as Bowden may be right, you just can't take what he says at face-value. He's got a big horse in the race; it's kind of embarrassing. I cringe at all the faint praise and backhanded compliments he sends Joe's way.
I'd be upset too if a guy chose to win games instead of saving childhoods.
The question nagging me is what happens to the teams with PSU on their schedule? Little late for a pickup game no?
Whatd they do for teams with SMU? Theyd obviously figure something out.
That's really the nagging question?
Yes willy will. Shockingly I have a solid grasp on what happened and am now considering future implications. Specifically how and if it would challenge our schedule. Nothing about this nags me... Dude touched kids, got caught ( to late ) dude goes to prison, others will be punished as well.. Case closed. Shit happens in life, im not surprised at anything anymore, been happening in the church for a long time, humans are largely, morally over estimated. Moving on and wondering how it will effect our team. Pretty cynical i get that but i don't have the time or empathy to worry about others, i focus on "me and mine".
It's not about punishing the right people or forcing payment where due - it's about resetting the priorities of a system gone whacko. I don't get the lack of action here. It seems very straight forward. 3-4 years of no football at PSU is better like it. What happened there is sick.
The athletes can transfer and play immediately wherever they want without regard to scholarship limits at any school that is not currently under punitive restriction: The PSU - no child left behind limit exception.
Most games missed could be made up in season (there is likely some idleness due to bye weeks) or soon after due to the exception that this truly is.
Make it so. Somebody needs to step up here...PSU, the B1G, the NCAA - the teams who scheduled PSU. There isn't any doubt as to what happened at this point.
Thank you TSS. I don't see how this is so difficult for some people to see.
The inestigation was worthless.....emails weren't released and findings were on interview conversations that weren't detailed, written down and released but very publically laid blame at joepas feet............
Joe is guilty, I'll say that........but the majority of guilt lies at the feet of the former president and head of campus police...........jmo, they did have the power to tell joe what was what..... I also feel it was all about protecting a life long friend and nothing to do with protecting football.....
No. By most accounts, Paterno and Sandusky did not like each other much. This was all about the football program.
Remember that Spanier, Schultz and Curley were apparently building some sort of case to take to the authorities in 2001, but it was after a conversation with Paterno that Curley claimed to be "uncomfortable with the next steps", so nothing was done.
Yes, technically they were his superiors, but Curley was essentially hand-picked to be the AD by Paterno when they joined the Big Ten, and Spanier probably wanted to avoid the public relations nightmare that they are now experiencing. Even a janitor was afraid of reporting what he saw because he feared for his job - it is very clear now that the program was thought to be untouchable even by the university itself and to say otherwise would mean your end, not the program. When there is such a culture of fear and no one feels empowered to use good judgment, then something's - no, someone's - shadow looms far too large. Things are not in control at this point.
This is a school where success was valued more than the individual, where the priorities were completely opposite of what they should have been. It was about protecting the success of the program and avoiding the negative publicity - there is no other feasible explanation for why a former DC with emeritus status and access to facilities should be handled almost politely despite his crimes and no thought was given to the lives he had essentially destroyed.
I do tend to agree with some people here - this is about resetting priorities, and the only real way to do this in the case of Penn State may be to remove - for a time - the conflicting priority. It seems to me that, so long as there is continuity in the presence of the program, then there will always be a connection to, well, this. A clean start after a break may serve the school better.
Uh, who do we want from PSU? Imagine the feeding frenzy if suddenly every PSU player was back on the market. You might as well have a "job fair" with every coach from the B1G, Big XII (10), SEC, Big East, ACC, MWC, MAC, Sunbelt, EPL, La Liga, and WWE attending to pitch their programs.
And, I mean, while I'm hopeful someone will impose the death penalty (or at least kick them out of the B1G), there is one element of unfairness to the kids. Not every program has space for these kids. Trying to fit about 85 kids into the rest of Division I programs of similar ilk to PSU is not so easy, I wouldn't think. I mean, saying you can be free to transfer, but only Rice and Temple have available scholies, isn't quite fair. While all the big programs have a FEW available scholies, it's going to be a really circus for all the kids to land. Maybe NCAA could say, a school can take 3-5 kids and the scholies won't count against the 85.
Death penalty is not warranted in my opinion. That, like Wolverine pointed out would drastically effect hundreds of people who had no involvement in this matter and frankly knew nothing of it.
No one is arguing there will not be collateral damage. But if there is any community that deserves the excess damage, it would be the cult that worships JoePa and PSU football. It is that culture that fostered this coverup. Additionally, the student riots after Paterno was fired, the continued support after the Freeh report and the reluctance to take down that statue all underscore the lack of insight possesed by the bulk of that community. They need to get rocked to the core to make them appreciate the gravity of what happened.
The problem is that they can't process and come to terms with the fact the last 60 yrs of their way of life was based upon a farce.
Rule. We don't speculate or take glee in situations like this. We shouldn't be thinking about our gain from someone else's horrible situation.
For this reason, I'm guessing the B10 would enforce its policy about in-conference transfers. Let the PSU kids go anywhere they like, immediately -- but not within the B10 (unless the kids are willing to pay their own way). A B10 feeding-frenzy would reflect terribly on the conference, which definitely doesn't need more bad PR.
Or, in order to be as generous as possible to the innocent PSU players, maybe let them transfer in-conference if the kids are first willing to sit out a year.
He made the point that it would be unfortunate for the players and coaches if that happened, but "there's always collateral damage when you punish a program." And that you can allow players to transfer and coaches to get paid to mitigate that. That ignores the fact that there are FAR more more people besides players and coaches that depend upon PSU football that would be punished, dozens of small businesses in Happy Valley that depend upon that revenue, dozens of employees that work directly or indirectly for the program, not to mentiion that students at the school that directly benefit from the money that football brings in.
If you substituted any other business or organization, whether it's XYZ Corp, Happy Valley Pizza, or the Catholic Church, for the words "PSU football program," with the exact same circumstances, and the management involved in the decsions were fired or died, no other business with be closed by any other governmental body, and none of those businesses would be in jeopardy of being closed by outside forces. None. But somehow it's ok to do so with PSU. It's not. They should suffer, and they will suffer--the civil lawsuits alone will damage them severely--just like any other organization. Closing them down will pile up more injustice on top of the injustice that exists.
The NCAA is not a "governmental body". It's a voluntary association of colleges and universities with certain requirements for membership. The NCAA giving Penn State the death penalty is more analogous to a fraternity's home office revoking a charter than it is to the IRS seizing property. The ability to use coercive force is a huge distinction that isn't at play here.
Coercing PSU to drop their program makes no difference wherther its from the givernment or the NCAA. Come on.
cannot coerce anyone to do anything. Everything they do is predicated on an institution having a desire to stay in the club. Compare that to the IRS who can forcibly shut an organization down.
If I start a club and say, "you have to have a 3.5 GPA or you're out of the club" I haven't coerced anyone. If a judge makes a plea deal with a college student and says "keep a 3.0 GPA or the Sheriff will use violent Acton to take you to jail", that's coercion. The ability to use force compared to the ability to end a voluntary association is a big distinction.
The fact is the NCAA would choose to make an decision that would have the affect of forcing PSU to end it's football program. Whether or not the organization is voluntary, the NCAA is making the choice to say you no longer meet our requirements. Your distinction is a legal one that has no practical difference. It is still the NCAA making that decision. If PSU made the decision on it's own, I'd disagree for the reasons I listed earlier, but I'd understand and make no other comment.
Of course the community would suffer some degree of collateral damage. But I'm not sure the damage would be as profound or widespread as you say. In a given year, football accounts for only 6-7 days worth of business, the vast majority of which goes to the school. Sure, a small group of vendors and stadium personnel would lose some income. And that does suck for them, no doubt. But I don't think losing football for a year or two would cause much of a dent in the town's economy. PSU gear would still sell. And it's not as if the program would be going away forever.
There's a myth out there that football teams are windfalls for communities. The myth is propagated by team owners/university presidents who want stadiums built with public money. In fact, that's mostly a ruse. Football games make money for football teams.
As for the money that would go to other PSU sports teams, yes, they'd feel a dent. And they should. Their athletic department, as a whole, was deeply corrupt. But football has made so much money for so many years -- as has the school in general -- that PSU could float the other teams for a year or two.
But they lead to some questions.
What if PSU had committed massive NCAA rules violations? Those small businesses and students would be just as innocent and the death penalty would hurt them just as much.
Generally speaking, there is a strong correlation between athletic success and revenue generated both by the schools and surrounding and related businesses. That's especially true for football.
Are there any strong sanctions short of the death penalty that wouldn't cause the same problems that you mentioned, just to a lesser extent? Do you have the same objections to any penalties that would put a program at a competitive disadvantage? Or is there some amount of loss to innocent parties that is acceptable?
Think the death penalty should be in store. I think prosecuting and putting people behind bars along with lawsuit money going to the victims. Don't see the point of punishing the current players who had NOTHING to do with this.
So you are basically saying that 99% of NCAA punishments shouldn't have occurred. The innocent are collateral damage, but there is no other way to deter unwanted behavior for the future. Without punishments, football programs would have no disincentive to cheat.
I think by covering up the crimes that it did help the PSU football program. Why else would Joe PA and the PSU administration cover it up? I guarantee that recruiting would have taken a blow for a couple of years if Sandusky would have been fired instead of allowed to retire with dignity. Also, this would have been a huge off the field distraction for the coaches and players that could have had negative inpact on performance. The argument that the football program shouldn't be punished because the current players had nothing to do with it is silly. What NCAA punishment isn't punishing student athletes for something that they had nothing to do with?
Straight from the NCAA site:
"However, the simple fact is that the punitive nature of NCAA-imposed sanctions make it unavoidable that the penalties imposed on institutions as a result of their involvement in major infractions will have some negative effect on innocent student-athletes."
What I think people are missing here is that they punish at the level of the program, so indeed, even people who had no knowledge previously and no connection to the events will suffer along with the rest. It is not much different when corporations are punished, for example - a few people may go to prison, others will be terminated, but the well-meaning contingent of the workforce has to live with the ruined reputation of that company and the potential loss of business. That's simply how it is, for better or worse.
I disagree with the death penalty for PSU football. As horrible as the crimes perpetrated were, they did not directly involve the football team or provide a competetive advantage for PSU football. The PEOPLE involved are all being punished within the legal structure our society has in place. Anything the NCAA does seems out of place.
Also, if a punishment is given and it is a one year suspension of football, is that an adequate punishment for what occurred? How could the NCAA justify any punishment as being proportional?
It directly involved the FOOTBALL HEAD COACH and Athletic Director, as well as the former defensive coordinator/heir apparent.
Again, they chose FOOTBALL over kids well being. Hence, Penn State should be punished by having it taken away for a while.
I understand your points, but they are being punished more severly in the judicial system than they could in the NCAA, which is an athletics enforecement body. This was a coverup by a few people at the top of the school structure (including the former president Spanier and defacto president Paterno).
I am just trying to have a discussion here and am not flaming. If the NCAA did enforce the death penalty, under what mechanism would they use? LOI? It has been widely speculated that any severe punishment given by the NCAA will be met with a lawsuit from PSU, which they would probably win.
You just said it yourself. The problem is who was responsible for the cover up - the leaders of the university. ALL OF THEM. They represent the entire university bc of the position they are in.
So if Tress was punished in some way by the legal system then OSU shouldn't have gotten any penalties since he acted alone?
If MSC, Dave Brandon, Brady Hoke AND the VP of the University were all involved in a cover up of this magnitude to avoid negative press that would affect the football program, would you say that no NCAA penalties should result?
The greatest scandal in the history of college sports deserves it's harshest penalty.
The idiot people who argue that no competitive advantage was gained drive me insane. If that news came out in 1998 when PSU football was struggling, JoePa might have finally pushed out. Covering it up was self-preservation and to protect the football program. PSU football is PSU, which is also synonymous with Joe Paterno.
Case, most of those NCAA violations occurred while athletes were at the university and may have likely received benefits. No current or past PSU player was involved in the molestation of kids. Several OSU players were involved in tat scandal, therefore, the team should be punished. I see your point but I just think PSU is going to suffer enough already...
Players? You don't think it's much worse when it involves the head coach, former D-Coordinator, President, Vice President and Athletic Director.
How much more representative of PSU can you get?
People you mentioned? If it was discovered that Lloyd paid players 10 years ago to play at Michigan...would it make sense to punish the current team?
Hmmm...let me think about an example to help you understand. Have you ever heard of Chris Webber? Ed Martin?
What happened with those guys?
You mean like when Michigan suspended itself from the postseason tournament in basketball for infractions that started around the time the current players stopped believing girls had cooties? Or when Braxton Miller doesn't go to a bowl game, and all the Tat-Five are gone? Or when USC doesn't get to go to a bowl game because of Reggie Bush's off campus actions five years prior?
Pretty much every NCAA punishment ever is focused on dissuading the program from acting in a similar manner. I've said it on another thread and I'll say it here, the MGoBlog community didn't have a lot of sympathy for Ohio players not caught up in Fine Line Ink and their prospects for bowl games or a full roster of teammates, I'm not getting the sudden change of heart now.
Knew that a penalty was coming...he could have gone elsewhere.
What about USC students? Nobody had any issues/regrets over them getting punished. In fact we've had people say on here that the punishments did nothing
Yes, it would. It's a shame. But the alternative -- not punishing the program -- is worse. Absent the risk of severe penalties, programs would have no reason to play it clean. Logic, friend. Logic.
As heinous and evil as what was done at PSU, nothing that happened was done by players or in an attempt to give Penn State any sort of athletic advantage. Because of this, any suggestion of a death penalty (whether voluntary or not) is absolutely ridiculous. The NCAA or B1G getting involved would be, IMO, something that greatly outsteps their bounds. This is a criminal case involving persons who happened to be a part of either the football program or the university's administration, but is not a football matter. I think the right move is for the NCAA to stay out of the way and to let the justice system handout punishments on an individual level. If they decide to go after the entire university, so be it, but the football program should not be singled out.
Covering it up to avoid negative press, and negative recruiting. Also lets your face of the university stay on board and use his icon status for recruiting.
Penn State should get the death penalty because Joe and the admins chose football over the kids well being. Let the current roster transfer to anywhere they want in D1.
Do you think its unfair that Matt Barkley/Lane Kiffin's USC got punished for what Reggie Bush and Pete Carroll, two guys no where near campus when punishment was given, did?
As heinous and evil as what was done at PSU, nothing that happened was done by players or in an attempt to give Penn State any sort of athletic advantage." - jhender85
I don't know if you could say that the second part of that conjunction is really true.
It has been established well in this thread that players and people with no connection to the crimes will suffer the effects of any punishment simply because of how they are dispensed and the level at which they are dispensed.
As for giving them an athletic advantage, a search of the Division I Handbook doesn't provide a specific remedy, but it could be argued, in my opinion, that preserving the reputation of the program and the iconic status of Joe Paterno by not reporting Sandusky allows them to get a #6 class in 2006 and a #12 class in 2010, and even their otherwise middling classes in the top 50 ranked recruiting classes, and this is just football (even people who didn't play football there, or indeed, any sports, have said that his presence was a huge factor in their decision).
It is hard to deny that, until recent events, the very name of Joe Paterno drew people to Penn State. Those classes - at least some of them - may not have materialized if this had broke in 2001. It's not "impermissible" by the NCAA's figuring in the handbook, but I am pretty sure that obtaining an advantage by not reporting numerous instances of sexual assault of minors didn't occur to them.
Anyway, I can see why people might say this. The mere fact that they chose to preserve the reputation of a football program, a school and Paterno means that the football program is in a materially better state than it would be if the crimes had been reported earlier. I think you could make an argument that this is an "advantage" in the sense that they continued to benefit from Paterno's good name through their inaction.
Just don't think the death penalty is the answer, I assume the death penalty is canceling season...something that I don't think happened at Michigan. If you want to keep PSU out og B1G title and bowl for a year...fine but does that do justice? I don't think so...prosecuting and putting adults who allowed this to happen behind bars is sufficient IMO.
Correct, UM did not have a season canceled. Did I miss the part where Perry Watson was sodomizing kids and Steve Fischer was cool with it?
What's going on? A few thoughtful remarks and (keeping with the spirit of how JoePaGate has been handled so far on MGoBlog) a lot of this (subtracting politics if you can ... I have no allegiance to Tom Tomorrow's stances):
People who are saying that the death penalty is not the answer and either fine or bowl bans are in order are really only looking at things from the football program's point of view. From football program's point of view "punishing innocent kids" makes no sense since they had nothing to do with it and they will be the most affected.
But if you look at it from the institution point of view, the death penalty is the only answer.
Sandusky is someone who could be found almost anywhere. He is a monster that lurks underneath the civilized society. It is completely random whether or not the place you worship, work at, or attend may or may not harbor such monster. This is something that can not be prevented.
What CAN BE prevented is when the monster shows its true colors, you act to make sure that the damage caused by the monster is minimized. This is where PSU failed. But why did it fail?
By all indication it failed because it valued its football program too much. It was willing to ignore the innocent lives of kids in danger because in their own risk analysis, the football program was worth more than the lives of those kids.
THIS is what PSU needs to address. This perverted thinking that any athletic program is worth more than saving innocent kid must held underwater and kept there until any hint of life has disappeared. By ending the football program, you can send the message to the university, its fan base, and everyone else that no athletic program is worth sacrificing innocent kids lives.
This is not something NCAA should prescribe. This is something PSU needs to do for itself, for its own good.
Agreed. I'm not sure this is within the NCAA's purview. But I definitely think PSU would go a long way by simply offering its own version of penance. No football for a year, maybe two. Show the community that you're endeavoring to get your priorities back in order. Wash your hands. Then start over, from the beginning.
That would be a moral thing to do but PSU would never do it.
The fact that they're keeping the JoePa statue up shows they have learned nothing. They will never give themselves any kind of punishment.
I've vacillated on this issue for some time but ultimately I think they probably should get the death penalty for what happened there. Here are the main arguments I've seen come up, and my response to each:
-The legal system will punish the school / people involved harshly enough, anything additional from the NCAA would simply be a mockery of how serious the situation has become.
I simply disagree. I don't think you waive your responsibility to punish an organization simply because others may be punishing them as well. Also, as part of my second point, I actually don't think the legal system is targeting all the correct people.
-The legal system will punish those responsible. Anything the NCAA does now will simply be punishing players and students who have nothing to do with the scandal.
First off, the NCAA punishes primarily those unrelated to scandals all the time as it takes them years and years to sort through cases, and most players and coaches involved have already moved on. Second, and more importantly, I think the current players and students, and alumni fans, are every bit as central to this discussion as those directly involved. It's my belief that the context and the environment created at PSU was one of deification, which allowed Paterno the ability to cover this up. The culture needs to be shredded to pieces, and in my opinion, this would be well served by e.g. a 2-year death penalty. If you think the current program has suffered enough, I hold up two pieces of evidence that it has not: 1) look at the recruiting class. If you saw this without knowledge of the current scandal you might not have any idea anything was wrong and 2) they are keeping the statue up! They still just don't seem to get it. I think the NCAA should do everything in its power to fully destroy the potential for such cultures to crop up in the future.
-This falls outside the rulebook / there is no formal NCAA rule PSU broke.
I'm not an expert in this, and I think it's probably the most valid argument against doing something. My main counterargument would be.. you (NCAA) are not the legal system. Take some leeway and do the right thing, this is clearly and extenuating circumstance.
but all revenue generated at the gate and concessions go the the victims and to victim support groups, etc. don't kill the cash cow, just don't let penn state have the profits.
those are different. either way, i kind of agree, although i think they should do it for ~13 years (since the absurdity went on from 1998 to 2011 or whatever)
Have them make the money but put it to a good use. The whole thing was about money so make the punishment about money. This might be more costly than the death penalty - with the death penalty they don't have to maintain the program, the facilities, etc. With this, they have to still run the program, host the games, travel to the games, etc but every red cent of profit goes to the victims.
If PSU's athletic dept doesn't get the football revenues, it will likely be forced to drop all the non-revenue sports. Or the support would have to come from somewhere else. Don't think this was your intention.
A year off punishes that deserves punishment.
This was not merely an individual crime. It was also an institutional conspiracy and an intentional tort.
The institution deserves to be punished. Suspending play for 1-2 years punishes the institution. There is no other punishment that doesn't affect the players, unfortunately.
The players should be free to transfer.
By lawyers forever. Ceasing play punishes fans and players who were not involved. Some may say as enablers, which, yes, but not actually involved. Also, how many years of football is the right number? Is one year it, how about 5 how about 10?
Well, lawyers don't punish institutions, courts may. But regardless of that fine distinction, if there are large settlements at the cost of PSU, those payouts are ALSO hurting the (otherwise innocent) student body and faculty, by compromising programs that the academic side of the university might need, are they not?
Are you saying the athletic program, led by two of the ringleaders in the cover-up, should have no penalty? I see your point of view, but I don't really believe that would be a good result, or would send the appropriate message.
This whole thing came about as a direct result of covering up to protect PSU football. That is the root of the cause, and as a result kids were raped. There's no way around that.
The institution is to blame, as is the athletic program. And both should be penalized in every possible way.
I don't believe there are any satisfactory alternatives. Just my thinking on this. And I also have to say, I don't like seeing this happen.
I've said this before: the situation is unique, and the extremely serious nature of it certainly justifies a uniquely fashioned penalty from the governing body of collegiate sports.
Did it offer a competitive advantage?
Well, I suppose the answer is going to involve a semantic argument, but I think it should be said that a program's good reputation attracts players, attracts money, and attracts coaches. A program with a bad reputation has more difficulty. So the reputation of a school's program can be said to contribute to a competitive advantage in recruiting.
Is the death penalty appropriate? Well, what else would be appropriate, given the serious nature of the offense? Doing nothing, which is what PSU is hoping for, is clearly inappropriate. A mild penalty like OSU Tatgate penalties, is also not appropriate under these circumstances.
The NCAA has to act, if for no other reason than to maintain its own reputation. There really is no other choice other than to suspend the program for a period of time, and 1-2 years seems about right.
Seeing what PSU is planning re: the Paterno statue gives you an idea of what they'd do about the football program; nothing. I think there will be howls from the rest of the country if nothing happens here.
I'm not sure the B1G should kick PSU out, but if the NCAA doesn't act, it should suspend PSU for a period of time.
All of us except Jay Paterno believe the Freeh report to be the truth. Remember though that Freeh is an independent investigator. No court of law nor an NCAA investigation has determined with finality that the Penn state employees covered up for Sandusky yet. We are getting ahead of ourselves with saying what the NCAA should do to punish Penn state...because they haven't finished their probe.
Dirty recruiting? Miamis scandal? Tattoo gate? Paying cam newtons father? None of these come close to what happened at PSU.
If the NCAA finds these guys guilty, and justifies the power to punish them through the fact they gained an unfair advantage, how can you not give the death penalty and ban all these guys from intercollegiate athletics.
The 2001 football program, to me, absolutely deserved the death penalty for this. If they had been caught actively covering this up I would be leading the charge to blow the program up, but I'm not so sure the 2012 or 2013+ football team deserves the death penalty after the fact. All the guilty parties of this coverup are now well removed from the program, and this punishment is essentially against a completely different program. Some action absolutely should take place, but I believe some other punishment would be more appropriate 12 years later, possibly to the university as a whole because much of this coverup was perpetuated by the higher-ups. Of course no punishment will fit because this is really unprecedented.
It was a continuous coverup that ran 14 years, probably longer. The perjury by their leadership occured during the 2011 season. Sandusky still had access to the program the entire time.
And even after PSU received notification that an indictment was coming, they allowed him to attend the next game in a private box.
This is just an argument that coverups should be punished only if they fail. You are saying that the success of JoPa, Curley, and company in allowing Sandusky 12 more years of rape makes the death penalty, which you would otherwise "be leading the charge for," no longer appropriate.
This is not about punishing person X who is playing/selling goods/going to school a given year because of actions taken by (or potential benefits seen) by person Y who was involved previously, this is about the institution of PSU, which is an entity in and of itself (and modeled in Political Econ as an actor, if you want to get really dork-ish about it).
PSU the INSTITUTION failed in a profound way and as such should be punished AS AN INSTITUTION for transgressions realized by it. Swiss companies post WWII, subsequent governments to ones that run up big WB loans, UM hoops, whatever, all are punished b/c the institution has failed.
With that being said, I think that PSU should be in charge of fixing this (statue, FB penalities, whatever, in house) and be judged for their response. If they want to have no self-imposed penalties and keep JoePa's statue there, fine. However, if they do this, I am convinced that they will go from everyone's second or third favorite big ten team to one of the least favorite (and by far the creepiest seeming, not by their fault, but still) while the 99% of non-PSU people who hire, admit, and or otherwise promote people in the real world will be consciously and/or unconsciously biased against that institution, which will harm it irrevocably more in the long run than a missed FB season.
involved in this cover up certainly had the agenda of the football program saving face and in turn not to hinder recruiting. I really dont know how people can sit there and say this had nothing to do with the football program.
The people on this board do not want to admit it because they have just as much of a stake in PSU football as Joe Paterno did.
If PSU football is suspended the GASP what will that do to the Big Ten? How about revenue?
Worse yet what were to happen if such an action occurs at Michigan? Do you suspend the football program? YES! YES! YES!
I am amazed how many of you have put college football ahead of criminal activity, victims, and everyday life. You have essentially made Joe Paterno right in his actions. You justify the actions of someone to hide criminal activity and if they are able to succeed long enough then there is no consequences for their actions.
Who are Spanier, Schultz, Paterno, and Curley if not the face of Penn State?
If you care about healing huge wounds and the victims of the families then as a member of the current administration you should put the program on hiatus. This will demonstrate that you truly do not want to see a program take precidences over crimes commited on campus. This would demonstrate that no football program is beyond the law.
My children were not involved but if I found out that my kid was raped and those involved didnt report it because they were afraid for their precious football program then I would want that program brought to the ground.
involved in this cover up certainly had the agenda of the football program saving face and in turn not to hinder recruiting. I really dont know how people can sit there and say this had nothing to do with the football program.
Kind of wary about the death penalty. The feds are going to come hard after PSU anyway.
If this had happened at Michigan, I would have already written a letter to the university President saying we should voluntarily put football on hiatus for a year, maybe longer. It's the most appropriate way to show remorse. This shameful cover-up happened because football was king at PSU. Show that something matters more than football by voluntarily suspending the program for a year (or more).
would you have? i don't mean to call you out or criticize, but its very easy to say that when its happening to someone else. i agree with your sentiment completely, and its important to show that some things are more important than football. but many of us would say that we'd write to the president asking to cancel the season, but when it actually happens, we'd justify to ourselves why we shouldn't. which is exactly what psu fans are doing right now. again, this is not meant to call you out. its just a point of discussion.
As an alum of both Michigan and penn state, I can say with certainty, if this was happening to Michigan, I'd be calling on Michigan to kill the football program for at least a year if not more. I've written to psu to tell them that as a grad alum, I will never donate bAck to the university until they give themselves the death penalty.
Graham Spanier has a PhD in Sociology and is a an expert in family sociology and and a licensed Marriage and Family Therapist. He was a founding editor of the "Journal of Family Issues". If anyone knows the impact of sexual abuse perpetrated on children and the adverse effect on their families as well, it should be he. Yet he, apparently, colluded with the other administrators and was complicit in allowing the cover-up to continue. He certainly knew that child predators and pedofiles do not recover from their obsessions and they must be stopped. That he ignored the victims and future victims is beyond criminal to my way of thinking.
Graham Spanier may no longer be president of PSU, but he is an interim professor of Sociology currently teaching at PSU.
Wow! Is he seriously teaching at PSU right now? I don't even have the words... Ugh
according to wikipedia. i seriously doubt he's teaching. (it's the summer, and he was the president. he probably wasn't scheduled to teach ever, and it'd be weird for him to have volunteered to teach outside the academic year when student quality is lower.) it probably just takes a while to fire him.
For me, if we were do this logically, the punishment would be as follows:
3-5 postseason ban. Allow them to play the games, thus allowing stadium workers, vendors, etc. to keep their jobs. This doesn't take away anything from the rest of the Big Ten, but keeps Penn State from having any real meaning allowed to their football season. No trophies or titles for the Nittany Lions.
A "donation" of a certain percentage of profits (50%? 75%? 100%?) to various victims of child molestation groups across the country.
To me, this allows the least amount of harm possible on people uninvolved in the scandal while thoroughly affecting the idea that the football team is too big to face consequences....as well as actually putting funds towards helping people who have been harmed in similiar tragedies.
by funding scholarships out of football revenue for full ride scholarships for any victim of child sexual abuse in the state that wants to attend PSU.
Is a garden gnome
It's already been touched on by some, but making the argument that a Death Penalty/sanctions only hurts people who did nothing wrong is a really terrible argument. That's how sanctions and penalties work. The current USC players and most of the OSU players were not involved in the scandals that led to their respective sanctions. Obviously sanctions hurt players/coaches that had nothing to do with the original trangressions, that's how it works.
The trustees refusal to remove the statue and their anonymous quotes after seals it for me. Not only the death penalty but out of the B1G as well. Back to 11 they can join the big east. The students riot for a pedophile enabler who even wants them in our conference anymore?
I thought the Cam Newton situation would result in some kind of action, and then surely that Tresselgate would force them to act decisively. I don't know how Calipari is still in business. Now, with revelations of the most horrendous crimes being covered up with the most appallingly purposeful "negligence", if the NCAA can't do something commensurate, I give up entirely on them. They should fold up the tent and let colleges organize themselves. Who cares about the other stuff they do if this can pass?
has merit. I understand the reasoning. The PSU Football culture spun out of control and allowed this and other criminal activity to go on knowingly and unchecked. There should be a severe penalty against the Football program and it should be relegated to its appropriate place wihtin the institution. If PSU aint' going to do it, let the NCAA give 'em a time out and force 'em to do it. This has nothing to do with the current players.
I think there's a good argument for shutting down the entire university as an entity. Shutting down for a few years the small portion of the athletic department that was at the root of this evil seems like the minimum possible punishment. Whether the NCAA has grounds to do it or not is another question.
for the actions of persons gone is unjust. As despicsable as the actions of the President, AD, and Paterno were they still were the acts of a tiny minority. How then can it be ethically justified to punish an entire group of people for something they were not even aware of? This is not a Germans and the Holocaust situation where claims of ignorance was absurd. This was a situation that occured beyond closed doors far from view from anyone other than the aforementioned triumvirant. Thus, I have to conclude that any punishment directed at anyone other than the two still living participants as well as the Paterno estate in terms of litigation, is unjust.
Every school that gets punished involves people who had nothing to do with the offenses. Did the players and coaches at USC getting punished now have anything to do with what Pete Carroll and Reggie Bush did? It's the institution that gets the punishment.
i am slightly concerned about what will happen to other psu sports if football is suspended. football is the cash cow and if you suspend football, its likely that at least several other sports at the school will go under. this could produce an absolutely disastrous effect on the entire student athlete body for years.
How does Georgetowns basketball team and other sports survive? They won't have to pay for the football team and all the costs that go along with it so other sports would survive.
Obviously severe punishment has to be dealt out to PSU. For those of you opposed to the death penalty, can I ask what would be more appropriate? Bowl bans and scholarship reductions won't do anything to a traditional powerhouse. That's been proven to us on multiple occaisions. This was a cover-up that a lot of the athletic department was involved in. They enabled child molestation by not only failing to seek out authorities, but by continuing to allow Jerry Sandusky access to the athletic facilities after he was done working. That part obviously hasn't set in for some of you. Ohio State got punished because players sold things they worked for, for tattoos. If Penn State gets anything remotely similar to that punishment, what message is that sending? Punish the entire athletic department by cancelling PSU football for a few seasons. It's not a rash decision when you put it into perspective. If anything, it still won't do justice for the crimes committed. All of you people who are saying "Oh no, you can't do that. Innocent people will be effected!", here's a quick thought; Innocent people have already been effected by this whole thing because some assholes thought their reputation and football team was more important than protecting children. There are more important things than a fucking football team. Get this done so that the victims don't have to hear about this whole thing everyday anymore.
The season starts in 7 weeks. No way the NCAA acts that fast. Plus, how do the 12 teams on PSU's schedule replace them? Might not be a good reason, but it is a big reason why it won't happen this year.
Seeing as how they didn't bother to do anything after the news broke last season, except have a prayer meeting before the Nebraska game, I highly doubt PSU has any class. Even Pelini thought that the game should not be played.
Yes they had a moment of silence for the victims which I found to be ironic considering silence is what caused it to go on so long.
I see a common refrain from the posters defending PSU in this thread that you can't punish the institution because it will hurt innocent people. There is some force to this claim, but be careful. At it's limit this type of thinking justifies refusing to ever punish large institutions, because there will always be somebody who didn't know about the wrong doing that will be harmed when the institution is punished. E.g., if we fine KPMG for tax fraud, some innocent janitor may be fired as a result.
One trouble with a focus solely on the responsible individuals is that it may not be effective as a deterent. If the structure of the institution is such that it incentivizes bad behavior, then altering that structure may be more effective in avoiding future bad behavior than simply threatening to punish wrongdoers. This is, I think, part of the point of the Freeh report which states that the culture at Penn State must change to help prevent future bad acts.
Another problem with focusing solely on the individual wrongdoers is that it ignores the benefit innocent people recieve from bad behavior by others in the institution. The KPMg janitor may have gotten a bigger bonus because KPMG had more $ as a result of tax fraud. He did nothing wrong to get the money, but it's not clear he is morally entitled to it (the law calls this state of affairs, "unjust enrichment"). In the PSU situation the whole school, football team included, benefited by the cover-up. They avoided, amongst other things, paying liability to victims and suffering the bad PR. Even innocent people received these benefits and so they arguably can have these benefits taken away.
I'm glad that PSU is not on our schedule this year (assuming no death penalty). The game would not be enjoyable to me. How can one cheer for football knowing that your opponent's leaders aided and abetted and child rapist without any significant appreciation of the matter by their institution at large? Seeing PSU fans rejoice about football within Paternoville would make me vomit.
Anyone remember when Vince McMahon almost beat the piss out of Costas live on off the record in 2001? Man that was hilarious.
There are plenty of people/organizations who did great things who also did horrific things as well. Just because PSU has great academic achievements does not wash away that fact that their culture enabled these leaders to sacrifice children for athletics.
Even today, just head over to Blackshoediaries and you can see all the JoePa apologist who even today refuses to believe that JoePa is anything but a saint.
THIS is what needs to be destroyed in order for PSU to succeed as a great academic institution. This culture of blind trust and worship must be eradicated if you want to make sure something like this never happens again.
What you are suggesting does not correct any underlying decay that enabled all this.
of the snake has been cut off. One Dead... One in Prison... Two more fired and pending trial....
Only people who would be punished would be the student athletes.....
Just head over to Blackshoediaries and you can see what kind of dark culture JoePa has created. It needs to be destroyed.
There are people there who are blaming the PARENTS of the VICTIMS for this tragedy over there. The same people are still denying that JoePa did anything unethical.
These people need a slap to the head to bring them back down to earth. The only thing that will do that is the Death Penalty. Just punishing the 4 people will not change the corrosive culture that already exists at PSU.
Also, and this is probably redundant given the anonymity here, but whoever went through and marked "redundant" to my and other posts, way to bring something to the discussion. I don't know why this bugged me so much, but for such a sensitive and nuanced situation the childishness of a couple of people here is just annoying. You have an issue with something said, then respond and add to the discussion. Blanket "derp, I don't like your opinion so you suck" responses lowers the quality here.
Nah, I've never cared about voting either. Heck, been here for over 3 years (kind of scary, I just realized), and gave up long ago really caring about how people view my posts. Just annoyed that someone wasted the time to basically mark "redundant" on lots of posts without adding a comment. The one thing I hate about most message boars are the drive-by trolls, and MGoBlog is pretty good about keeping them out.
But yeah, thanks for the uptick. I'm not really insightful - just had a point of view I was trying to convey.
This thread is almost a carbon copy of multiple other threads since the Freeh report was released. The only new information is that Costas supports the death penalty for PSU. "Redundant" is appropriate. It's the same people banging the same drum and having the same exact argument against each other.
Well, considering how we have such sparkling topics as "I'm drunk and its Friday" and "I'm drunk and it's Saturday" still milling about, redundancy and needless postings are kind of the norm.
But whatever. Happy that know that there are people out there making sure a free website's forum section doesn't contain duplicative content.
Lots of people knew about Sandusky. The friggin' janitors in the lockers rooms knew. They reasoned that JoPa and Curley were okay with what Sandusky was doing, though, and feared that they would lose their jobs if they came forward first.
That's a sick, sick culture. PSU needs to make a clean break with it, and if the current leadership can't see that, then someone on the outside is going to have to force them to see it.
they didn't report it to campus police because they thought they would get fired.
this is a great debate.. even though the primairy charges are criminal, I think the university is still gonna get reemed
That article is shit, how about common sense that you would turn in that turd. I wish Joe could have got some jail time to get pounded in the ass.
I dont understand how the parents would allow their sons to commit to a school that just went through the worst scandal in college football history. Even with a good new hire coach, I would not let my son go to that school. Yet PSU will have a good recruiting class after all of this.
As a doctoral degree holder from PSU, and a undergrad Michigan degree, I have a unique perspective, I think. I have a loyalty and respect for Penn State the academic institution, but I'm a wolverine when it comes to sports and the college experience in general.
The death penalty has some appeal, but I don't think it would work to stop the football is king hysteria at Penn State, so I'm torn about it. Especially if the NCAA levies it, it will just entrench the fanbase even more. No, I think what Penn State needs to do is to publicly repudiate everything that is Joe Paterno and the grand experiment.
Tear down the statue. Remove the name from the Library, and refund the Paterno's money. Vacate all of Joe Paterno's wins. All of them. Every cupcake, every regular season win, every bowl, and both national championships. All of it. Prove once and for all that no one man is bigger than the university. Prove that football is secondary to the academic mission.
This hurts none of the current players, but makes it clear that Penn State is going to make a meaningful break with it's past.
Instead of not allowing the football team to play for a year or more I thought of another punishment that might actually hurt PSU more and still allow the football team to compete. Would it be possible for the B1G to withold shared money from the BTN and bowl games for a year? Hit them where it really hurts, in the wallet.
Along with that hit them where their pride is, Joepa and football. Remove every win since 2001, any titles won, clean the slate like they never played. Lastly remove the statue, it's got to go and a shrine should be built to remember the victims. Instead PSU is doing it's best to remove the memory already with the plan to remodel the shower room. Disgusting.