Jerry Sandusky accused of child molestation (2 Viewers)

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

 

[CrossEyed]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Yeah, I agree. Death penalty for the football program does punish the entire university.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Sure, because no organization without a football team has ever covered for a pedophile before.

I can't think of a good example otherwise. What am I missing?

I think the Vatican's got a solid defense this year but their QB is a bit of a question mark.

 

[Tabasco Red]

Didn't want to start another thread regarding this so I'll ask it here. And to be honest I haven't kept up with this thread since the report was released this morning.

Is there any foundation for a civil case by the victims of Sandusky against PSU or the leadership named in the Freeh report?

Obviously, there are moral implications delivered by the report, but are there any legal ramifications too? TIA.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Is there any foundation for a civil case by the victims of Sandusky against PSU or the leadership named in the Freeh report?Obviously, there are moral implications delivered by the report, but are there any legal ramifications too? TIA.

Yeah, looks like it. Part of the report details the university's failures to comply with the Clery Act, which governs the reporting of alleged criminal activity on campus. The university and its administrators are arguably liable under a lot of different theories for failing in their duties to prevent this from happening.

 

[Mile High]

How are they going to give the football team the death penalty? They didn't break any NCAA rules. This is court problem not a NCAA problem.

 

[CrossEyed]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

How is taking away a huge revenue stream not punishing the school? How would you choose to punish them?

 

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

I don't think it's underhanded at all. I can't think of a better way to punish the school.

 

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Sure, because no organization without a football team has ever covered for a pedophile before.

I can't think of a good example otherwise. What am I missing?

I think the Vatican's got a solid defense this year but their QB is a bit of a question mark.

We can't punish the Vatican. Too bad, I wish we could. Penn State can be punished.

 

[pittstownkiller]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

How is taking away a huge revenue stream not punishing the school? How would you choose to punish them?

Who is saying it wouldn't punish the school, please follow along. If your intent is to punish the school, then punish it; don't punish everything around them to attack it by subterfuge. What kind of message are you sending when people, presumably just as guilty as Paterno, are allowed to have their actions not be punished or at least not have the ramifications of Paterno's? If it was a janitor, would you get rid of the maintenance crew; it could be argued this would hurt the school but where is the punishment for the institution?

 

[Christo]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Sure, because no organization without a football team has ever covered for a pedophile before.

I can't think of a good example otherwise. What am I missing?

I think the Vatican's got a solid defense this year but their QB is a bit of a question mark.

We can't punish the Vatican. Too bad, I wish we could. Penn State can be punished.

What does that have to do with your statement?

 

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Sure, because no organization without a football team has ever covered for a pedophile before.

I can't think of a good example otherwise. What am I missing?

I think the Vatican's got a solid defense this year but their QB is a bit of a question mark.

We can't punish the Vatican. Too bad, I wish we could. Penn State can be punished.

What does that have to do with your statement?

Which statement?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

I don't think it's underhanded at all. I can't think of a better way to punish the school.

I'm sure you can't think of a better alternative because it would play against your Machiavellian ways, Tim. The best way is to punish the school; not a part of the school, that ipso facto accomplishes your same desire.

 

[Sea Duck]

How are they going to give the football team the death penalty? They didn't break any NCAA rules. This is court problem not a NCAA problem.

There are numerous NCAA Bylaws that address ethics, conduct, and "lack of institutional control". Also, the NCAA has sole jurisdiction regarding enforcement -- if they decide that PSU violated the bylaws, there's really nothing PSU can do about it. Who is PSU going to appeal to?

 

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

I don't think it's underhanded at all. I can't think of a better way to punish the school.

I'm sure you can't think of a better alternative because it would play against your Machiavellian ways, Tim. The best way is to punish the school; not a part of the school, that ipso facto accomplishes your same desire.

My "Machiavellian ways"? Seriously?

 

[Mile High]

How are they going to give the football team the death penalty? They didn't break any NCAA rules. This is court problem not a NCAA problem.

There are numerous NCAA Bylaws that address ethics, conduct, and "lack of institutional control". Also, the NCAA has sole jurisdiction regarding enforcement -- if they decide that PSU violated the bylaws, there's really nothing PSU can do about it. Who is PSU going to appeal to?

Here is a NCAA compliance lawyers take on what the NCAA can do. Listen here

 

[dickey moe]

I haven't read most of the recent pages in this thread, so I'll apologize ahead of time if this has already been brought up...

A couple of questions for the legal-types in here: 1) if Paterno were still alive today, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?; and, 2) if he were subject to criminal prosecution, do you think anyone would have the guts to actually indict him for his supposed role in the cover-up?

 

[Raider Nation]

SportsPickle ‏@sportspickleI understand the push to tear down Paterno's statue. But in fairness: the statue did more to protect kids than Joe Paterno did.

Tony Darby ‏@TonyDarby88I think Penn State should keep the Joe Paterno statue. Just move it so he's looking the other way.

 

[Borat]

How are they going to give the football team the death penalty? They didn't break any NCAA rules. This is court problem not a NCAA problem.

There are numerous NCAA Bylaws that address ethics, conduct, and "lack of institutional control". Also, the NCAA has sole jurisdiction regarding enforcement -- if they decide that PSU violated the bylaws, there's really nothing PSU can do about it. Who is PSU going to appeal to?

Here is a NCAA compliance lawyers take on what the NCAA can do. Listen here

No thanks; just tell us.

 

[Borat]

Here is a sample of the pro-Paterno side of things:

To be fair somewhere around here I have the Bill James essay ripping into the Dowd Report. We know how that worked out.

Check out this moron's take on the Freeh report.My link

 

[Smack Tripper]

I can excuse and understand the Paterno's family pain and confusion releasing a statement in light of this release.

But Jay Paterno's attempted defense of his father by going on talk show after talk show leads me to believe he's as much a piece of garbage his father was.

I still say, the future will eventually relent for Joe, but Jay, your father lived his life and made his choices, and while you may consider this incident "a chapter" for him, its an entire book for each victims. Just shut up and go away you incompetent boob.

 

[wazoo11]

Temple may have more bowl victories then Penn State in the next 10 years or so.

Who would of thought?

 

[Sea Duck]

Here is a sample of the pro-Paterno side of things:

To be fair somewhere around here I have the Bill James essay ripping into the Dowd Report. We know how that worked out.

Check out this moron's take on the Freeh report.My link

Why are they so obsessed with proving that Sandusky's retirement wasn't due to the 1998 incident? Even if true, it wouldn't make Paterno look any better, would it?

 

[Joe Summer]

Here is a sample of the pro-Paterno side of things:

....

The most glaring omission in the report is that Freeh did speak to any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary (whom he referred to as “McQuade” in the press conference). Not Jerry Sandusky.

How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?....

Gee, did you ever think that maybe these guys couldn't be interviewed because they were under indictment?? (Or, in Paterno's case, dead.) Was Freeh supposed to postpone his report until he could get interviews with every single person involved?

 

[General Malaise]

As a matter of fact, I think allowing PSU to disband the football team would send the wrong message that it was a football problem and not a school problem.

It is a football problem. Not a school problem.

Once the news spread to the school president and others outside of football, it became a school problem and it was that way for quite some time, it appears.

 

[snitwitch]

The only possible way this could get more nausea inducing is if this whole thing re-emerged and ended up being true: http://www.nesn.com/2011/11/jerry-sandusky-rumored-to-have-been-pimping-out-young-boys-to-rich-donors-says-mark-madden.html

 

[Rayderr]

As a matter of fact, I think allowing PSU to disband the football team would send the wrong message that it was a football problem and not a school problem.

It is a football problem. Not a school problem.

I see you've decided to double down on your prior nonsense.

I'll ask you the same question I earlier. Do you think Spanier and Schultz would've acted the same if the person in question was a science professor or groundskeeper?

 

[pittstownkiller]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

I don't think it's underhanded at all. I can't think of a better way to punish the school.

I'm sure you can't think of a better alternative because it would play against your Machiavellian ways, Tim. The best way is to punish the school; not a part of the school, that ipso facto accomplishes your same desire.

My "Machiavellian ways"? Seriously?

It was a nice way of pointing out that when you try to be "nuanced" it can leave a reader with a feeling that you are non-committal; I chose Machiavellian to at least suggest that you have a deeper thought process that I might be missing.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I haven't read most of the recent pages in this thread, so I'll apologize ahead of time if this has already been brought up...A couple of questions for the legal-types in here: 1) if Paterno were still alive today, would he be subject to criminal prosecution?; and, 2) if he were subject to criminal prosecution, do you think anyone would have the guts to actually indict him for his supposed role in the cover-up?

I'm a lawyer, but totally unqualified to give opinions on criminal matters. From my vantage point, Paterno probably committed perjury, but the case would seem to be weak, so I doubt if he would have been indicted.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Here is a sample of the pro-Paterno side of things:

....

The most glaring omission in the report is that Freeh did speak to any of the primary witnesses in the case. Not Paterno. Not Tim Curley. Not Mike McQueary (whom he referred to as “McQuade” in the press conference). Not Jerry Sandusky.

How can any investigation possibly be considered remotely complete or come to any legitimate conclusions without even speaking to any of the most important witnesses?....

Gee, did you ever think that maybe these guys couldn't be interviewed because they were under indictment?? (Or, in Paterno's case, dead.) Was Freeh supposed to postpone his report until he could get interviews with every single person involved?

All of those people (the living ones at least) specifically refused to talk to Freeh.

 

[comfortably numb]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

What happened in 1994? And what makes you think the Board of Trustees knew about any of this stuff?

 

[comfortably numb]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

What happened in 1994? And what makes you think the Board of Trustees knew about any of this stuff?

My dates perhaps are mixed up, 2002 is when Paterno 1st knew and sent it up the ladder?If so a 10 year football ban, is a reasonable compromise.Basically for however long PSU enabled a rapist to roam free.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

Tim, this is your typical, middle of the road, solution for everything; if this scandal is a football problem, and the football program is in effect the whole school, then the school as a whole, should be punished.

No disagreement. By removing the football program that will punish the whole school. Not sure how that's "middle of the road."

Because it is underhanded. If you're desire is to punish the school, then punish the school; anything short of this is playing semantics or political, take your pick

How is taking away a huge revenue stream not punishing the school? How would you choose to punish them?

Through the courts. This is the reason why we have tort law.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

What happened in 1994? And what makes you think the Board of Trustees knew about any of this stuff?

My dates perhaps are mixed up, 2002 is when Paterno 1st knew and sent it up the ladder?If so a 10 year football ban, is a reasonable compromise.Basically for however long PSU enabled a rapist to roam free.

The timeline at the beginning of the report is easy to read and does a good job at telling the story. 1998 was the first impropriety anybody knew about. The Board of Trustees doesn't seem to have known anything about anything until 2011.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

What happened in 1994? And what makes you think the Board of Trustees knew about any of this stuff?

My dates perhaps are mixed up, 2002 is when Paterno 1st knew and sent it up the ladder?If so a 10 year football ban, is a reasonable compromise.

Basically for however long PSU enabled a rapist to roam free.

The timeline at the beginning of the report is easy to read and does a good job at telling the story. 1998 was the first impropriety anybody knew about. The Board of Trustees doesn't seem to have known anything about anything until 2011.

And therin lies the problem and potential lack of institutional control.

 

[The Commish]

The NCAA, Big Ten, or Penn St won't do anything to PSU football. Just like when Paterno and gang decided to cover-up all this, it's about the money. And PSU makes all these people cash. If this happened at say Akron then the NCAA would flex its muscles.

On what basis? What NCAA rule did they break?

Lack of institutional control?

Question still remains...what NCAA rules did they have an inability to control? Best I can tell there are no NCAA rules broken here. The NCAA isn't needed here. They'd just get in the way and screw things up. This is going to take care of itself.

 

[Bigboy10182000]

The NCAA, Big Ten, or Penn St won't do anything to PSU football. Just like when Paterno and gang decided to cover-up all this, it's about the money. And PSU makes all these people cash. If this happened at say Akron then the NCAA would flex its muscles.

On what basis? What NCAA rule did they break?

Lack of institutional control?

Question still remains...what NCAA rules did they have an inability to control? Best I can tell there are no NCAA rules broken here. The NCAA isn't needed here. They'd just get in the way and screw things up. This is going to take care of itself.

The NCAA will find some way to flex it's muscles on this, there's no doubt about that. This thing is too big for them not to do something and no matter what it is PSU will take it.

 

[Smack Tripper]

The NCAA, Big Ten, or Penn St won't do anything to PSU football. Just like when Paterno and gang decided to cover-up all this, it's about the money. And PSU makes all these people cash. If this happened at say Akron then the NCAA would flex its muscles.

On what basis? What NCAA rule did they break?

Lack of institutional control?

Question still remains...what NCAA rules did they have an inability to control? Best I can tell there are no NCAA rules broken here. The NCAA isn't needed here. They'd just get in the way and screw things up. This is going to take care of itself.

It might be a reach, but...

NCAA Mission Statement

Mission Statement of NCAA*

Core Ideology:

The NCAA's core ideology consists of two notions: core purpose - the organization's reason for being - and core values - essential and enduring principles that guide an organization.

Core Purpose:

Our purpose is to govern competition in a fair, safe, equitable and sportsmanlike manner, and to integrate intercollegiate athletics into higher education so that the educational experience of the student-athlete is paramount.

Core Values:

The Association - through its member institutions, conferences and national office staff - shares a belief in and commitment to:

· The collegiate model of athletics in which students participate as an avocation, balancing their academic, social and athletics experiences.

· The highest levels of integrity and sportsmanship.

· The pursuit of excellence in both academics and athletics.

· The supporting role that intercollegiate athletics plays in the higher education mission and in enhancing the sense of community and strengthening the identity of member institutions.

· An inclusive culture that fosters equitable participation for student-athletes and career opportunities for coaches and administrators from diverse backgrounds.

· Respect for institutional autonomy and philosophical differences.

· Presidential leadership of intercollegiate athletics at the campus, conference and national levels.

I think there are several places you might interpret the compliance to conform to in the above, but the bolded is probably the broadest definition in which Penn State failed to live up to the mission set forth by the NCAA. I guess it will be a question of precedence, but I don't know who would object to this particular intercession. You'd look like a fool to take a stand against it.

 

[tri-man 47]

I would not punish PSU football for what 1 man did, but I would punish PSU football for what Paterno and the BOT did NOT do for 17 years. Since 1994 when reports were 1st documented Paterno and the BOT tried to hide and continued to allow a rapist on their campus. I think a 17 year football ban is a reasonable compromise.

What happened in 1994? And what makes you think the Board of Trustees knew about any of this stuff?

My dates perhaps are mixed up, 2002 is when Paterno 1st knew and sent it up the ladder?If so a 10 year football ban, is a reasonable compromise.

Basically for however long PSU enabled a rapist to roam free.

The timeline at the beginning of the report is easy to read and does a good job at telling the story. 1998 was the first impropriety anybody knew about. The Board of Trustees doesn't seem to have known anything about anything until 2011.

And therin lies the problem and potential lack of institutional control.

The Board did know that football had a distortedly large influence on campus. I was reading somewhere about a student services dean (or some such position) who complained about the special treatment given to the football players, e.g., that Paterno wanted all discpline matters to go through him. The Board certainly would have known of this culture ...and let it stand.

 

[yellowdog]

Mike Vrabel violated an NCAA rule by using tobacco on the sidelines at the OSU scarlet/gray game. There has to be a rule that would cover coaches raping kids in the locker room.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

Mike Vrabel violated an NCAA rule by using tobacco on the sidelines at the OSU scarlet/gray game. There has to be a rule that would cover coaches raping kids in the locker room.

He was an ex-coach by the time of the incident witnessed by McQueary.

 

[The Commish]

So my thoughts on the Freeh report:

First thought is that there were a lot of people saying that because Freeh was hired by PSU BOT, it would be a watered down report. I don't see how anyone can reasonably think that after reading it. It's everything, unpolished and unpoliticized. Bravo to them.

Second thought: Sally Jenkins is right, Paterno was a liar. He was living as a cardboard cutout as someone said, not as a real man. Living off the legend that he (in general, correctly) had earned for 30 years. But when it got to the back nine of his career and he wanted to cement the legend, he failed. He ####ed up. He put the legend ahead of the future, in terms of young boys' lives and happiness. Disgusting.

I give the Paterno family a lot of leeway, but agree that they should shut up now.

I agree with tearing down the statue. I'm divided on the name off the Library to be honest because that was a good gesture and symbol of him making a correct values judgement. But I think most people will want it gone.

I don't really agree with trying to wipe his memory off everything else though, like record books or trophies or whatever. That seems silly.

Regarding penalties I am probably too close to the situation to form an unbiased opinion. Here's a biased one:

I don't think the NCAA should do much of anything. The LOIC is a pretty weak argument in reality. It was too much control by powerful men in the organization that allowed this to happen, not too little control. There are 4 reasons why the NCAA hands out penalties. Let's go over them:

1) To punish the actual wrong doers (athletes, coaches) – In this case I don’t see how that is necessary or can happen. Sandusky is in jail. McQueary won’t coach again. Paterno is dead. Schultz, Curley and Spanier will probably end up in jail. Those are the real people to blame. This isn’t like Dez Bryant lying to the NCAA when he still has eligibility left. There’s no one left to punish.

2) To punish the school at which the violation occurred – In this case clearly you can still argue for this punishment reason. Although I would argue that even when people complain that the innocent players shouldn’t be punished, like in the Ohio State case when Tressel was gone, there is still someone left who SHOULD have done something, like AD Gene Smith or Pres Gordon Gee. In this case, no one is left in the path of “Should have done something” by authoritative control, except for maybe a couple of the BOTs.

3) To set a future example to prevent the wrong doer and school from doing it again – Really? Do we really think that ten years from now, assuming PSU even has a team, Bill O’Brien is going to find out that his assistant is molesting kids and say to himself, 'I should cover this up. That will work'. This is devastating to everyone at Penn State, everyone associated with it, from alums to current players to fans. No one is going to let this happen there again. PSU is probably the safest place on earth to send your 10 year old boy going forward. The safeguards put in place against this specific crime and anyone in any department getting out of the chain of command will be immense.

4) To set a future example to prevent other schools from doing it – Double Really? Have you read the news since this broke? Have you seen twitter today? Let’s pretend that the NCAA does nothing. Let’s assume (hope) that Schultz, Curley and Spanier end up in jail. Do you really think that some coach at another program if he finds an assistant is molesting kids is going to say, 'you know, I’m going to cover this up because that worked out so well at Penn State. The coach was fired and then died. The rest of the people who covered it are in jail. The school was sued out the ying yang and will forever have a bad reputation from it. But I think I can get away with it, because you know, they never got the death penalty'.

How absurd is that argument? And that’s the point to me. You are really only punitively punishing the school for something if the NCAA steps in here. You’re not punishing the wrong doers, you’re not setting a lesson for the school or wrong doers because they don’t need it, and you’re not setting a lesson for other schools because that isn’t needed. This is not selling merchandise for tattoos. This is not lying to the NCAA investigator. Punishing Dez Bryant for that met all these criteria and made sense. Don’t lie to investigators or else. Puinishing USC for Reggie Bush’s parents getting a place to live met three of the criteria. He was gone but the school got punished and learned a lesson to not give free housing to parents of recruits. USC has bounced back pretty well but I’d bet that if someone went to Nick Saban and said 'hey, let’s give this recruit’s parents a place to live', he’d think back to the USC punishment.

In this case, you don’t need that. It’s obvious because of how horrible it was. When you add that up with a shaky argument about whether it even falls within NCAA rules being broken, I don’t think they should act.

Now, someone else made a good point. PSU football makes a lot of money for PSU. If you’re telling me that some people are about the sue the pants off PSU, I’d say that they shouldn’t voluntarily get rid of any revenue streams. Although some here think the whole school should go down, I think that’s ridiculous.

So here’s what I would do, and again this is coming from an alum who still cares about and supports Penn State: I would say that after the lawsuits are settled, we shut down the football team for a year or two. That does a couple of things:

1) Helps “save” the University by bringing in money while settling lawsuits

2) Doesn’t really screw the current players as they still play for several more years

3) Does hurt recruiting as who wants to go to a school knowing that they may be on the “death penalty” their sophomore and junior seasons.

I don’t expect much agreement on this one. I know lots of people want PSU to burn to the ground. But I like this compromise. No penalty by NCAA since it doesn’t really fit. Self imposed death penalty for a year or two. But have it several years in the future to help protect the rest of the University and take some punishment away from the current players and staff. And of course current players can still transfer if they want.

OK, I think I’m ready for the name-calling.

The offer of a fest is always open GB.

 

[SacramentoBob]

On a scale of Casey Anthony to Jerry Sandusky, how much do you love kids.

 

[The Commish]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

This is one billion percent wrong. It's not a "football problem". It's an institution problem. The leadership of the institution along with a lot of their staff completely failed. That staff was in the football program. If this were a cover up by the institution of the law department (using someone's example from before) where the law professors, their dean, the chancellor all covered it up, would we be saying it's a "law department" problem? Of course not. Because the institution made the decisions based on the football program doesn't mean it's a football problem. It means those decision makers (the institution) were the problem. They are responsible for their decisions regardless of what rationale they used to justify the decisions.

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Mike Vrabel violated an NCAA rule by using tobacco on the sidelines at the OSU scarlet/gray game. There has to be a rule that would cover coaches raping kids in the locker room.

He was an ex-coach by the time of the incident witnessed by McQueary.

Well there has to be a rule for coaches providing football facilities to a former assistant to assist him in the raping of children.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.

IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

 

[Wrighteous Ray]

I think they should leave the statue, named buildings or halls and record books alone. Hiding this stuff away makes it easier to forget that the world is a complicated place where people can do both really good and really bad things.IMO it's worth having a reminder of that. Let people see the statue, remember all of his legacy, and think about how easy it is for even good people to do the wrong thing if they stand to lose something valuable to them by doing the right thing.

They should probably add something about "child rape enabler" though, just to drive the point home. "I'd like a double scoop of Peachy Child Rape Enabler Paterno please." Yum.

 

[timschochet]

Let me rephrase what I mean (I can't speak for CrossEyed.) Yes, of course it's a school problem. But first and foremost, it's a football problem. Because the whole reason for the cover up is the success of the football program. Again, if this happened at either a school without a football team (such as my alma mater, UC Irvine) or a school without a money making football team (Harvard or Yale, for example) there would have been no cover-up. Sandusky would have been caught and stopped. That's why football has to be removed from the university IMO; it's the only just result.

This is one billion percent wrong. It's not a "football problem". It's an institution problem. The leadership of the institution along with a lot of their staff completely failed. That staff was in the football program. If this were a cover up by the institution of the law department (using someone's example from before) where the law professors, their dean, the chancellor all covered it up, would we be saying it's a "law department" problem? Of course not. Because the institution made the decisions based on the football program doesn't mean it's a football problem. It means those decision makers (the institution) were the problem. They are responsible for their decisions regardless of what rationale they used to justify the decisions.

You're just not getting it. The whole reason for the cover up is football! You and others keep bringing up comparisons to the law department or the chemistry department or whatever, but none of these hold, because those departments don't earn millions upon millions of dollars. This is ALL about football.