Non-horrible Sandusky thread to discuss PSU sanctions (1 Viewer)

[Doug B]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

 

[Pick]

Would you feel more personally angry at a murder of someone you don't know, or at being accused of contributing to said murder?

First, I'm not talking about anger I'm talking about feeling sorry. I'd feel sorry for someone being murdered.Second, do you believe the public in general blames all of PSU for what has happened?

It's been explained that PSU sutdents and alum are partly responsible because of the culture. That we contributed.

I guess this kind of answers my previous question. PSU guy is way off base if he feels the general public believes all of PSU is to blame. Maybe a minority of wackjobs.

I don't think most people at any college are OK with cheating or recruiting violations...but I would say that a LOT of people, perhaps even most people, at most colleges would look the other way if they saw something minor happening. That a lot of people might even actively participate in them to give their boys an edge as long as they felt confident they wouldn't get caught. The number of people who would look away or cover pedophilia up is extremely small. Less than 1/4 of 1% I would guess. And that figure wouldn't change even if the other 99.75% knew they'd never get caught. That's part of what makes this so unique, and the sanctions so senseless (to me).

I dunno. I'm thinkin strawman here. I think the majority of people at most colleges are going to be against cheating.

We feel terrible for the failures of our leadership, but not responsible. I'm OK with punishing PSU the institution for its leadership failures. I'm not OK with sanctions that punish the fans and alumni as well. Monetary penalties punish the institution. Recruiting restrictions punish everyone else.

Well, that's for smarter people than me to figure out. I think it's tough to separate the two.

For the record though...I'm against these types of penalties period. I thought the USC penalties were stupid and overbearing, out of line with the advantage gained, and punished many for the actions of a few. I thought the NCAA was an overbearing and highly hypocritical organization BEFORE this scandal. I understand not everyone thinks that way. I don't hold any malice or hard feelings towards anyone who thinks the NCAA should punish the program for this if they generally support the way the NCAA punishes for anything else. My malice is reserved for those who feel that the students and alumni of PSU are responsible for this.

I'd like to see the real deterrent be the justice system sending the responsible parties to jail. PSU admins doing time to me is the biggest deterrent for other admins because it hits on an individual level which matches what happened (individuals carrying out crimes). But what if that doesn't happen? Then the only one punished is Sandusky. That's unacceptable and it sucks that PSU has to suffer for the crimes of a few but I really don't see a way around it.

 

[Pick]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

Don't get me wrong. I love the idea of unity and of concern for PSU's future. I think it would be irresponsible to drop everything else in the name of putting the victims first. I think the public is fine with this. But just don't vocalize it. It's just bad timing and can be misread so easily. So yes it needs to happen and PSU's future must be considered but on the down low. Tough to do that.The crimes are just too heinous to give any indication they aren't front and center. To me they are completely front and center especially given future lawsuits. But perception is big here.

 

[Pick]

For example, my opinion is that in the context of PSU's existence (150+ years?) this is a very dark but minor blip on the radar. But that isn't an opinion I would broadcast to the world (even if it's true). I'm only saying it here to try to make a point.

Like Alfred says, sometimes the truth isn't good enough. For the victims and the people supporting those victims they just want them to be the only priority. Which to me isn't rational but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And for PSU guy and given PSU's history it's not too much to ask to put your feelings on the back burner for now and let the victims have their day.

 

[renesauz]

For example, my opinion is that in the context of PSU's existence (150+ years?) this is a very dark but minor blip on the radar. But that isn't an opinion I would broadcast to the world (even if it's true). I'm only saying it here to try to make a point.Like Alfred says, sometimes the truth isn't good enough. For the victims and the people supporting those victims they just want them to be the only priority. Which to me isn't rational but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And for PSU guy and given PSU's history it's not too much to ask to put your feelings on the back burner for now and let the victims have their day.

I absolutely understand this sentiment. Unfortunately, following through on it should have meant allowing the legal system to finish it's trials first. The NCAA in this case acted with historic pace, levying historic sanctions quicker than it ever has in the past. With emotions still raw, and public anger still very high, it makes little sense for the NCAA to do this right now instead of waiting 6 months or so and taking more time and thought with it....to be honest, it absolutely reeks of either alterior motives or a simple bending to public emotions.When I spoke before of punishing the university, I was thinking about the money side of it. Removing all profits from football for 4 years hurts the university a lot more than the scholarships and weakening of the football team hurt. Profits that could go to worthy charities. I realize they gave a healthy, historic fine which probably equates to more than a years normal profits, with the loss of sponsors and loss of football quality probably equating to another years worth or so. If the idea is not to allow schools to cheat to protect or enhance the cash cow....than take the cash, don't slaughter the cow. Put an auditor there and collect all profits for the next 5 years and leave the football program alone...and voila...you accomplish the goal of insisting that schools take control of the programs or lose the money anyway, while leaving the innocent fans, athletes, etc. out of it. (I'm speaking more on the theory of NCAA punishments at all, not necessarily about this specific one.)AS far as the cheating thing goes...I agree that most people would publicly denounce cheating...but I think most people would look the other way if they saw one of their better athletes getting handed a few hundred on the side by some booster. (Some would warn the booster to stop, but few would be picking up the telephone to call the NCAA). I would have thought that nobody would ever have overlooked something like this, but apparently that belief was wrong.

 

[ConstruxBoy]

Love me some PSU. They do a lot of things right. In fact, they've done so many things right for so long they don't know how to act when they do something wrong. They'll come around.

This is really the crux of the issue. As mentioned, before this obviously horrible incident that overshadows recruiting violations, PSU was a very clean program according to the NCAA. One of only 4 or so programs without a major violation. And a lot of success to go with it. Going back to 1940 they've only had 5 season with a record under .500. So their fans, myself included, are used to success. Add in the aura of "Saint Joe" and this is a fan base that is not used to tough times. So it will take some time to get used to and will make a lot of PSU fans look awfully stupid. That's just the way it is.

 

[Pick]

For example, my opinion is that in the context of PSU's existence (150+ years?) this is a very dark but minor blip on the radar. But that isn't an opinion I would broadcast to the world (even if it's true). I'm only saying it here to try to make a point.Like Alfred says, sometimes the truth isn't good enough. For the victims and the people supporting those victims they just want them to be the only priority. Which to me isn't rational but I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. And for PSU guy and given PSU's history it's not too much to ask to put your feelings on the back burner for now and let the victims have their day.

I absolutely understand this sentiment. Unfortunately, following through on it should have meant allowing the legal system to finish it's trials first. The NCAA in this case acted with historic pace, levying historic sanctions quicker than it ever has in the past. With emotions still raw, and public anger still very high, it makes little sense for the NCAA to do this right now instead of waiting 6 months or so and taking more time and thought with it....to be honest, it absolutely reeks of either alterior motives or a simple bending to public emotions.

I agree time would've been great to make sure it's right but that doesn't mean anything would've changed. And again they are just erring on the side of the victims. Keep in mind PSU had all this time to fix this long ago. So taking their time was probably already tried and that tactic wasn't going to work anymore.I did not think less of PSU for what happened with those victims. But I do think less of PSU for their reaction to the sanctions. Having said that I realize it's a minority and that same stubborn group probably exists on any campus.

 

[Pick]

Love me some PSU. They do a lot of things right. In fact, they've done so many things right for so long they don't know how to act when they do something wrong. They'll come around.

This is really the crux of the issue. As mentioned, before this obviously horrible incident that overshadows recruiting violations, PSU was a very clean program according to the NCAA. One of only 4 or so programs without a major violation. And a lot of success to go with it. Going back to 1940 they've only had 5 season with a record under .500. So their fans, myself included, are used to success. Add in the aura of "Saint Joe" and this is a fan base that is not used to tough times. So it will take some time to get used to and will make a lot of PSU fans look awfully stupid. That's just the way it is.

I'm sure there was a point where USC felt nearly the same way.

 

[fatness]

Part of the problem is that us PSU fans and alumni refuse to accept responsibility for this.

Yeah, that is a problem.

People want all Penn Staters to pay for a culture that is no different than that at any other campus.

Yeah, all this stuff happens at other universities as well. Penn State is paying for what happened at Penn State, done by higher-ups at Penn State. You seem to have a problem with them being held responsible for anything. Maybe you could get Congress to intervene, like you desperately wanted Congress to intervene in the NFL lockout to help the poor victimized owners. Fortunately for Penn State, I don't think your "cry and point fingers" view is the majority view there.

 

[fatness]

It seems like the NCAA didn't really think through the recruiting process that is going on now for PSU players. It's a feeding frenzy. How is that good for the culture?

It'll last a week or 2 and be done and forgotten. It's not like coaches from other schools will be running out onto the field with letters of intent for players in the Penn State huddle to sign during games. Penn State will play their games the way they always have. They'll be fine. The "culture" can stand that small, tacky temporary inconvenience. These aren't elementary school children.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Found this on recruiting:

As long as players don’t practice or play games with Penn State between now and the start of the 2013 season, they can jump schools without penalty, the NCAA said. Incoming freshmen also are released from their national letters of intent so they can play for and receive athletic scholarships from other schools.Coaches from other schools will be allowed to contact and recruit Penn State players until classes start at Penn State on August 27. For the 2012 season only, schools not facing sanctions of their own will be allowed extra scholarships to make room for players they pick up from Penn State.Players will be allowed to practice with their new teams this summer while the admission process to the new schools is being completed.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts?

Because she is an ESPN elitest, just like many people on the forum think they are.

 

[Pick]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

 

[GeauxTigers]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

LOL...I wouldn't doubt it if it were true. Baton Rouge is not Utah. There is a saying in the SEC, "If you ain't cheat'in, you ain't try'in."

 

[GeauxTigers]

Part of the problem is that us PSU fans and alumni refuse to accept responsibility for this.

Yeah, that is a problem.

No it's not. Why is it the fault of the alumni? That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard from this story. Go ahead and blame the players while you're at it. Keep blaming others that are not directly responsible....

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

Yes, it's the biggest reason they are dominating college football now. They cheat more and better than everyone else does. And they embrace it.

 

[Pick]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

LOL...I wouldn't doubt it if it were true. Baton Rouge is not Utah. There is a saying in the SEC, "If you ain't cheat'in, you ain't try'in."

I would doubt it. I think you're talking about a vocal minority.

 

[GeauxTigers]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

Yes, it's the biggest reason they are dominating college football now. They cheat more and better than everyone else does. And they embrace it.

SEC! SEC! SEC!

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Interesting tidbit: USC is at their scholarship limit and because they are also under sanctions, they do not get a waiver for taking on a PSU student. So they need to either have a current player be declared academically ineligible or take a scholarship away from a walk-on student in order to get Silas Redd (who met with USC yesterday for 3 hours with a power point presentation and is visiting campus this weekend). Culture first, right?

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Second, could you give an example of a college culture that is ok with recruiting violations and/or cheating?

Obviously you know nothing about SEC recruiting.

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

Yes, it's the biggest reason they are dominating college football now. They cheat more and better than everyone else does. And they embrace it.

SEC! SEC! SEC!

Agent Ralph Cindrich had some scathing things he alluded to about Nick Saban and the SEC. I'd be interested to see if anything is looked into.

 

[Doug B]

Really? You feel the majority of the student population at LSU is ok with cheating?

When I was there, the vast majority of students didn't even think about it. The sports nuts were in the know, but didn't care at all.

 

[GDogg]

Interesting tidbit: USC is at their scholarship limit and because they are also under sanctions, they do not get a waiver for taking on a PSU student. So they need to either have a current player be declared academically ineligible or take a scholarship away from a walk-on student in order to get Silas Redd (who met with USC yesterday for 3 hours with a power point presentation and is visiting campus this weekend). Culture first, right?

This would be a terrible move for Redd, but it would be great for Southern Cal. I don't think Redd is going to get the bulk of the carries over starting RB Curtis McNeal unless McNeal gets hurt. So, that's why it's not a great move for him personally. But, RB is Southern Cal's weakest and thinnest positions. This would be huge for them.

 

[renesauz]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

 

[roadkill1292]

Maybe if JoePa had been dumped ten years ago Penn State football would have been better the past decade. If that is the case, double whammy for PSU for not giving him the heave ho when they should have.

 

[Maude]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

Sure thing man. And if you believe that, I've got a bridge in Alaska to sell you.

 

[Pick]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

Would you rather get busted for cheating or for what happened?

 

[fatness]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

When child abuse and rape is suspected (and actually going on), and the leaders decide to keep it quiet to insure continued good reputation, support, and funding, it may not exactly be cheating but it sure as hell is evading the law and public opinion for the benefit of the university and community. "We are Penn State" doesn't mean "We are Penn State, with all the pride and benefits that go with it, unless someone at the top of Penn State does something wrong. In that case we're just a collection of individual victims who had nothing to do with that person at the top or anything he did."It's a big, strong, longlasting university and community. It has leaders. When the leaders do wrong to benefit the image of the university and community, the university and community suffer. That's not unfair. It hurts, I'm sure, but it's not unfair.

 

[AAABatteries]

Does renesauz mean "angry" in French or something?

Dude - I admire the pride you have in your school but it may be time to take a step back and reevaluate things before you have a heart attack.

 

[fatness]

PSU forum topic about the man claiming to be Victim #2, the kid Sandusky was caught raping in the shower.

Sure he came forward, its time to get paid

Where has he been for that last 9 months? Unless he was manning the shuttle to Mars there is no sufficient answer.

When you are explicitly mentioned in all the documents and coverage leading up to the criminal trial, and then charges are brought on your behalf during the actual trial, you do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when you show up two months later looking for money.

It would seem Victim 2 would need to have been abused by Sandusky again, after the shower incident to have a case. Just being victim 2 doesn't make PSU responsible. Since 1998 was investigated and closed, not covered up, Victim 2 would be the effective start of the "cover up" if that's what it was. If Jerry did not abuse him after the shower incident, how is PSU responsible for events afterwards

Justice is seeing JS get put away forever and knowing that his life is completely over. Justice is getting up in the morning knowing that the main source of your anger, fear, social anxiety, or any other emotions related to JS is behind bars and can never hurt you again, meanwhile you can still go out and make a good living for yourself. Justice is NOT receiving $10M for your troubles.

I have no problem with a smaller financial settlement by the way. I just don't see the need for a victim to become a millionnaire overnight. That certainly isn't the case for millions of other victims. They receive what little can be provided to them by the organizations that have funds to do so. It shouldn't be any different for these victims just because PSU was involved.

Heres my problem why should they get paid just because PSU has money, there are so many victims in the world wheres their cash cow?

Yeah, but getting paid? I've been told on this board by victim counselors that no money in the world can overcome the psychogical damage caused by child abuse. If so, then why the payoff? Can't he just move on?

 

[cobalt_27]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

Wow. Your priorities are so ####ed up, I don't know where to begin. Pretty disgusting actually.

 

[CrossEyed]

PSU forum topic about the man claiming to be Victim #2, the kid Sandusky was caught raping in the shower.

Sure he came forward, its time to get paid

Where has he been for that last 9 months? Unless he was manning the shuttle to Mars there is no sufficient answer.

When you are explicitly mentioned in all the documents and coverage leading up to the criminal trial, and then charges are brought on your behalf during the actual trial, you do not deserve the benefit of the doubt when you show up two months later looking for money.

It would seem Victim 2 would need to have been abused by Sandusky again, after the shower incident to have a case. Just being victim 2 doesn't make PSU responsible. Since 1998 was investigated and closed, not covered up, Victim 2 would be the effective start of the "cover up" if that's what it was. If Jerry did not abuse him after the shower incident, how is PSU responsible for events afterwards

Justice is seeing JS get put away forever and knowing that his life is completely over. Justice is getting up in the morning knowing that the main source of your anger, fear, social anxiety, or any other emotions related to JS is behind bars and can never hurt you again, meanwhile you can still go out and make a good living for yourself. Justice is NOT receiving $10M for your troubles.

I have no problem with a smaller financial settlement by the way. I just don't see the need for a victim to become a millionnaire overnight. That certainly isn't the case for millions of other victims. They receive what little can be provided to them by the organizations that have funds to do so. It shouldn't be any different for these victims just because PSU was involved.

Heres my problem why should they get paid just because PSU has money, there are so many victims in the world wheres their cash cow?

Yeah, but getting paid? I've been told on this board by victim counselors that no money in the world can overcome the psychogical damage caused by child abuse. If so, then why the payoff? Can't he just move on?

Sad.

 

[renesauz]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

Wow. Your priorities are so ####ed up, I don't know where to begin. Pretty disgusting actually.

No...they aren't.Too many people seem to equate disagreement with the way this has been handled, disagreement with the sanction, with a belief in footballs importance relative to the safety of the kids. The two do not go hand in hand like that. Given the choice between the death penalty for PSU football and covering up for a child molester...I'd turn the molester in every time.

That said...the idea that two or three dumb #### indviduals with screwed up priorities covering up for a molester equate to anything even remotely construed as cheating is ludicrous.

 

[cobalt_27]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

Wow. Your priorities are so ####ed up, I don't know where to begin. Pretty disgusting actually.

No...they aren't.Too many people seem to equate disagreement with the way this has been handled, disagreement with the sanction, with a belief in footballs importance relative to the safety of the kids. The two do not go hand in hand like that. Given the choice between the death penalty for PSU football and covering up for a child molester...I'd turn the molester in every time.

That said...the idea that two or three dumb #### indviduals with screwed up priorities covering up for a molester equate to anything even remotely construed as cheating is ludicrous.

Agreed. It's so much worse. Obviously, you're unhappy your football program is going to suffer over a silly conspiracy to protect a recidivist child molester. I think we got it.

 

[Politician Spock]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

The words "Penn State" will forever more be associated with child molestation. But at least you've got this:We Are...

... Not Cheaters!

 

[Short Corner]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

And if they did, there is no way in hell they would cover it up.

 

[Pick]

Penn Staters took enormous pride in the fact that they didn't cheat. Even in this case, it wasn't cheating (it was certainly WRONG, but NOT cheating.) No unfair advantage was gained or looked for here. (A disadvantage was avoided that would have been unfair.)

That's a big part of why this stings so badly...we didn't cheat .

And if they did, there is no way in @#!*% they would cover it up.

I didn't want to be the one that said that but ya if JoePa erred on something this bad what else suffered? I don't think that's a healthy path to go down though. I'll just assume they were clean til otherwise proven I guess.

 

[cobalt_27]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

This is very fair. And, of course, there's a sense of pride in your school that would feel violated here, and it's natural to engage in mild forms of cognitive dissonance with all this.But...when it gets to the point where you say "at least we didn't cheat," implying that cheating is more tolerable than child rape (and toleration of and protecting the rapist). It's vile.

 

[renesauz]

Look...I understand where y'all are coming from, I really do.

Philosophically, I have a big problem with group punishments for actions which provided no unfair advantage to the group and were inherently personal in nature. (Many NCAA sanctions in the past have done this, and I have always despised the philosophy behind it) I do NOT have a problem with punishing any entity for the actions of it's leaders. I simply believe that the punishments should be better directed to the universities themselves and the punishments towards the innocent should be more limited and defined/based on any actual advantage that was gained. As I suggested before, taking all the football profits for 4 years would have hurt the university every bit as much as this did without touching those who had nothing to do with this.

BTW...at this point, this conversation is more philosophical for me than personal. I'm past my anger over the sanctions themselves and ready to move on in that regard. I'm not losing sleep and have far more interests in life than PSU football.

 

[renesauz]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

This is very fair. And, of course, there's a sense of pride in your school that would feel violated here, and it's natural to engage in mild forms of cognitive dissonance with all this.But...when it gets to the point where you say "at least we didn't cheat," implying that cheating is more tolerable than child rape (and toleration of and protecting the rapist). It's vile.

You completely missed my point. NOBODY IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING.

 

[cobalt_27]

And you should understand that probably using the word "unity" isn't what the rest of the world wants to hear right now. That's kind of my point. Right now anything beyond concern for the victims just rings of righteous pride. Yes be concerned about PSU's future but geez don't move on so quickly from what the only issue should be for now.

Can't agree here. Linda Cohn was going on today about not wanting to hear anything but Sanducky-victims-first coming out of a Penn State mouth for the foreseeable future.OK. It's great that she has this opininon and that so many agree with her. However: who the <bleep> is she? Why do people like her get to decide what others can acceptably feel in their hearts? Why can't individual affiliates of Penn State (fans, alumni, etc.) legitimately feel the way they feel -- and even speak about it -- without getting jumped on for being "tone deaf" and "not putting the real victims first"?

Personally, so long as a Penn State affiliate recognizes the fundamentally grevious wrongs of Sandusky, Paterno, Spanier, etc. ... it's acceptable and legitimate for them to feel a sense of loss, and to express these feelings. I give folks like renesauz and Fat Nick a total pass on this. Sure, not many will be sympathetic ... doesn't make the feelings somehow "incorrect", "tone deaf", or "out of bounds".

This is very fair. And, of course, there's a sense of pride in your school that would feel violated here, and it's natural to engage in mild forms of cognitive dissonance with all this.But...when it gets to the point where you say "at least we didn't cheat," implying that cheating is more tolerable than child rape (and toleration of and protecting the rapist). It's vile.

You completely missed my point. NOBODY IMPLIED ANY SUCH THING.

Well, whatever you meant, when you imply that the punishments should be greater for cheating than they should be for fostering an environment for a child rapist and the men in power who protected him, all your other points are kind of moot.

 

[Leeroy Jenkins]

Article on espn saying a source involved with the Freeh report states ncaa should not have used that in lieu of their own investigation because their goals were different and they didnt interview paterno, schultz, or curley.

 

[cobalt_27]

Look...I understand where y'all are coming from, I really do.Philosophically, I have a big problem with group punishments for actions which provided no unfair advantage to the group and were inherently personal in nature. (Many NCAA sanctions in the past have done this, and I have always despised the philosophy behind it) I do NOT have a problem with punishing any entity for the actions of it's leaders. I simply believe that the punishments should be better directed to the universities themselves and the punishments towards the innocent should be more limited and defined/based on any actual advantage that was gained. As I suggested before, taking all the football profits for 4 years would have hurt the university every bit as much as this did without touching those who had nothing to do with this.BTW...at this point, this conversation is more philosophical for me than personal. I'm past my anger over the sanctions themselves and ready to move on in that regard. I'm not losing sleep and have far more interests in life than PSU football.

The point of the sanctions is shake the system. I'm sorry your football team is no longer relevant. The larger issue is the Penn State institution clearly needed an outside entity to step in and create the necessary conditions to ensure that a guy like Paterno cannot dictate with omnipotent powers. PSU authorities and admin gave him a blank check on morality and looked the other way. This was a systemic, cultural problem. And, the feelings of entitlement among the football program and, by extension, the student body (who, judging from message board comments, still fail to see the larger picture), has to be extinguished. Whatever misgivings you may have about NCAA authority, they got this one right.

 

[fatness]

Penn State's acting Athletic Director seems to have his head screwed on right also.

first link

Joyner is an orthopedic surgeon. His reaction to the NCAA's ruling of a four-year postseason ban, a reduction of 40 scholarships over four years and a $60 million fine, was cloaked in terms only a doctor could appreciate.

"It's sort of like, you know you've got something going on and you're waiting for the diagnosis and the treatment from, you know, the physician,'' Joyner said. "And you find out it's a diagnosis and treatment that's, you know, pretty difficult for you to come to grips with. But you know what? Once you know what it is, you've got to move forward and keep going.'' Joyner added: "The bad thing you know is much better than the bad thing you don't know.''

Joyner tip-toed around many questions concerning the NCAA and its power to penalize PSU. But he did say the sooner Penn State found out, the better for the university. "In the large sense, would you wish for … obviously, you'd like something as easy as you can have it,'' Joyner said. "However, I think it's very positive that we get this out now. I think probably -- and I can't speak for [NCAA] president [Mark] Emmert -- but I think it's probably fair to say they wanted to get this done. "So we can get it over with before the season starts. From our standpoint, imagine what this would be like the week that [preseason] practice started [in early August]. So I think there was some, obviously, need for speed.

"I mean, I'm glad it's done. If it had to be fast, I don't think it was careless. I think it was rapid but it wasn't careless.''

He's looking for ways to make up the lost revenue.

Regarding the schedule, both Joyner and O'Brien have proposed scheduling more high-profile teams to generate better competition and fewer one-game paydays for lower-level teams. Joyner said he has spoken with several schools, which he wouldn't identify, about single games, home-and-home series and neutral-site games. Earlier this week, O'Brien mentioned the possibility of scheduling a trip to Hawaii as a 13th game, which is permitted by the NCAA. However, a spokesperson for the University of Hawaii said that teams under NCAA sanctions cannot take advantage of the exemption. "We will have to look into that," Joyner said. "Within the [12-game] regular-season structure, we could do anything we want."

Joyner added that the athletic department has explored outside events, such as a hockey game at Beaver Stadium, to generate revenue. "How about wrestling at Beaver Stadium?" he joked. "We're looking at all those things. They're fun to do, regardless of the situation."

A rasslin' show with some heel dressed as Sandusky getting attacked by a bunch of faces would make big bucks.

 

[fatness]

Article on espn saying a source involved with the Freeh report states ncaa should not have used that in lieu of their own investigation because their goals were different and they didnt interview paterno, schultz, or curley.

And a bunch of former players and Rick Santorum are attacking the report. More "boo hoo" from a bunch of crybabies.All you need to know is the closing line here.

The person said the NCAA should have talked to other coaches on its own.

“…Emmert took the report and used Penn State’s own resources to do them in. The institution is made of people, too. And they don’t deserve this.”

Penn State wanted the NCAA to use the Freeh report, and not do their own investigation, to keep down the extent of the punishments. The uninformed whiners #####ing about the Freeh report ought to be thanking Erickson for avoiding an NCAA investigation, on top of the other investigations already done and ongoing.

 

[renesauz]

Well, whatever you meant, when you imply that the punishments should be greater for cheating than they should be for fostering an environment for a child rapist and the men in power who protected him, all your other points are kind of moot.

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible."Fostering the environment" means what exactly? Who fostered what? If you refer to the respect and adulation Paterno once enjoyed, I think it's a ridiculous retrospective argument to suggest he didn't deserve it.(IE: It is ONLY in retrospect that this can be said...blaming people for doing so in the past is ludicrous.) The NCAA itself pushed that notion (note the name of a few important awards). If it's the importance of college football in general, than this is the wrong way to address it, because the same or worse importance is placed on it on many campuses, making PSU nothing less than a sacrificial lamb. "Fostering the environment" is too poorly defined here.I most certainly did imply that the punishments on THE TEAM ITSELF should be greater for cheating than for this, not the punishments on the responsible individuals or the university. Big differance I honestly believe has been missed by the majority here. What happened here was a thousand times worse than some recruiting violation or improper benefit...only a moron would believe otherwise, and I'm kind of frustrated that anyone would think I feel that way based on my arguments. But worse doesn't mean the responsibility is just as diffuse.

 

[renesauz]

Look...I understand where y'all are coming from, I really do.

Philosophically, I have a big problem with group punishments for actions which provided no unfair advantage to the group and were inherently personal in nature. (Many NCAA sanctions in the past have done this, and I have always despised the philosophy behind it) I do NOT have a problem with punishing any entity for the actions of it's leaders. I simply believe that the punishments should be better directed to the universities themselves and the punishments towards the innocent should be more limited and defined/based on any actual advantage that was gained. As I suggested before, taking all the football profits for 4 years would have hurt the university every bit as much as this did without touching those who had nothing to do with this.

BTW...at this point, this conversation is more philosophical for me than personal. I'm past my anger over the sanctions themselves and ready to move on in that regard. I'm not losing sleep and have far more interests in life than PSU football.

The point of the sanctions is shake the system. I'm sorry your football team is no longer relevant. The larger issue is the Penn State institution clearly needed an outside entity to step in and create the necessary conditions to ensure that a guy like Paterno cannot dictate with omnipotent powers. PSU authorities and admin gave him a blank check on morality and looked the other way. This was a systemic, cultural problem. And, the feelings of entitlement among the football program and, by extension, the student body (who, judging from message board comments, still fail to see the larger picture), has to be extinguished. Whatever misgivings you may have about NCAA authority, they got this one right.

This is the first clear argument against me that makes any sense. I agree that no man, no matter how well respected, no matter how much good he's done, should have that much authority. Has it been shown that this is the case? That Paterno was the driving force behind a cover-up? I thought that was still in the air a little?Regardless....I understand the thinking behind punishment/sanctions. While I still think this sort of thing should have been left to the courts and the inevitable lawsuits...I get it and can accept it.

My objections at this point are primarily about the methodology used by the NCAA...which I suppose is probably better suited to another thread not directed at this specific situation. The NCAA's punishments historically are too broad and too crude. They are (USUALLY) slow to react, with many violations going unpunished while others get overly punished. No consistancy, and from where I sit, no logic to them. Just MHO.

 

[fatness]

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible.

Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, individually and apart from their high-ranking roles at Penn State, could not have gotten away with covering up Sandusky's actions. They would have been just 4 guys. They did all this while employed in high-ranking, powerful positions by Penn State. Through this employment they had the means at their disposal to cover up, to not report, to allow harm to continue. And that is why they could get away with it for so long. Penn State allowed that.

 

[renesauz]

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible.

Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, individually and apart from their high-ranking roles at Penn State, could not have gotten away with covering up Sandusky's actions. They would have been just 4 guys. They did all this while employed in high-ranking, powerful positions by Penn State. Through this employment they had the means at their disposal to cover up, to not report, to allow harm to continue. And that is why they could get away with it for so long. Penn State allowed that.

Ummm...correct me if I'm wrong, but in any organization, anywhere in any field, there's ALWAYS going to be a few well-placed individuals who could cover something like this up. To say Penn State allowed that as if it was a cultural anomoly is a straw man. I agree in principle that when the well placed trusted individuals do wrong, the organization bears some responsibility, because they represent the organization.I'm not disputing that PSU the organization deserves punishment. I question whether the NCAA is the proper authority to do so in this case, but I get it, and can accept it. HOW they punish is what I find so wrong. PAterno deserves punishment, the school deserves punishment...the students and the TEAM do not. If the NCAA has the authority to levy a 60 MILLION dollar fine, which goes right to the heart of what universities get from their football programs...than why is it necessary to punish the team directly when the team itself recieved no unfair benefit? Why not make it 100 million and leave the team alone? The extra 40 million would do more good to charities anyway. This is a philosophical argument more germaine to discussions about the NCAA itself than this specific incident.

(By the way...I am a PSU fan, but not generally a college football fan. I only watch 2 or 3 PSU games a year on TV...this is hardly going to effect me a great deal personally.

 

[fatness]

No...my point is that all punishments, for whatever reason they are levied, should be primarily directed at those responsible.

Spanier, Curley, Schultz, and Paterno, individually and apart from their high-ranking roles at Penn State, could not have gotten away with covering up Sandusky's actions. They would have been just 4 guys. They did all this while employed in high-ranking, powerful positions by Penn State. Through this employment they had the means at their disposal to cover up, to not report, to allow harm to continue. And that is why they could get away with it for so long. Penn State allowed that.

I agree in principle that when the well placed trusted individuals do wrong, the organization bears some responsibility, because they represent the organization.

On that we agree.

HOW they punish is what I find so wrong. PAterno deserves punishment, the school deserves punishment...the students and the TEAM do not. If the NCAA has the authority to levy a 60 MILLION dollar fine, which goes right to the heart of what universities get from their football programs...than why is it necessary to punish the team directly when the team itself recieved no unfair benefit? Why not make it 100 million and leave the team alone?

The team is too important to you.