Link?
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Non-horrible Sandusky thread to discuss PSU sanctions (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Premier
- Start date
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
That's my point as well. Also, the "coverup" did not begin until 2001, so vacating wins prior to that is wrong.
Lot of people off the JoePa bandwagon. But punishing folks for having been on it to begin with is insane. PSU had a sterling reputation for a reason. 50 years and no problems, no crises, no sanctions or hints of wrongdoing at any point for anything, while all around college programs get hammaered for indiscretions.Joe Paterno gave over half his income BACK to the university. The library wasn't named after him as an honr...HE BOUGHT THE DAMN THING!He deserves the criticism and shame. But to even start to beleive that those who believed in what they thought he was doing, in the integrity they thought existed, deserve to be punished as enablers is ridiculous. Until a year ago (when this surfaced), you and every other person cheering in this thread over this punishment would have been cheering Paterno's legacy, cheering the integrity and even the wonderful, quaint atmosphere at PSU.
Last edited by a moderator:
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Did Big 10 ban them from the network or money only?
A lot of things don't mean what Christo thinks they do.
JerseyToughGuys
Tough Guy
It was a good run...
Articles 2.4, 6.4 and 10.1 and operating bylaws 2.4, 11.1.1 and 11.2.1.
Last edited by a moderator:
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I'm talking about the people who still think he was a god and above criticism in the face of the evidence that has been uncovered. These people are scary, and there are more of them than I would have thought.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Why do you keep saying this? What does "deserve" have to do with it? The NCAA rarely punishes the parties who deserve it. It punishes whoever is left in their wake. Penn State is not alone or special in that respect.
Last edited by a moderator:
Fair enough...but it's a mistake to think all PSU people are like that. It also might be just a little harsh after 50 years of perceived greatness. It will take a while for many people to accept the truth.
Arizona Ron
Footballguy
Who's saying all PSU people are like that? 50 years of doing what they're suppose to be doing doesn't make up for covering up for a child molester.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
I'd never suggest that all PSU fans or alum fit into that category. But more than I thought would have existed.
phrozen
Footballguy
WE LANDED ON THE MOON!!!!!!!
you serious Clark?
Exactly. Penn St., the institution, deserves to be punished. The NCAA cannot, and should not, take into account the feelings of the poor alums (and I mean that - I feel bad for the alums) who are going to be collateral damage. It's a shame, but your anger should be directed at Joe Paterno, Spanier and any other Penn St. persons involved in the cover-up for doing this to your beloved school and football program, not the NCAA for sanctioning them for their lack of ethics, their response and the coverup.
jwb
Footballguy
Well, who is being punished as enablers? The rabid fans? The cheerleaders? The alumni?The very fact these people feel punished by taking away the wins/etc cuts to the very heart of the overall problem.
I'm a casual Penn State fan. Didn't go there, don't own any gear, but I rooted for them over all other programs. I don't feel punished in the least.
I don't see how they violated any of those "rules." A rule is "don't do this," not "you should aspire to this and we'll decide whether you have done enough after the fact." Those are no more rules than "be nice to one another."
Last edited by a moderator:
Punishments of any kind, done by any entity, serve one or both of two purposes: 1. Provide an example for the purpose of deterrance. If you think this punishment needed to happen to serve as a deterrance, you're insane. Quick...name one other time a school covered up a comparable CRIME. Do you really think this was needed to deter this in the future?
2. Punitive damages We do it as a form of punishment. We punish the guilty, and we have a saying "Let the punishment fit the crime." If there is no deterant aspect involved, we punish only to the level of the crime. The NCAA isn't punishing Sandusky or any of those who committed the legal crimes here. They are punishing the culture at PSU. They are punishing those who supported the school and the program in the past, and hindering those who would do so in the future. People who supported the program for laudable reasons almost every poster in this thread understands and would have agreed with 2 years ago. These people are hurt and embararresed by what has transpired..they don't deserve PUNISHMENT.
So...the only reason for sanctions is deterrance...and it's value as a deterrant is HIGHLY QUESTIONABLE. Basic logic should tell you that this is purely spiteful, purely punitive...yet the brunt of the punishment is being handed down to those who don't deserve it.
A more appropriate punishment would have been the loss of football related profits for a decade...all going to appropriate charities. That would have sent the same message, hurt the cschool but NOT the people who have supported it. This...what they've done...makes no sense.
And who covered it up? You're going to punish the many for the crimes of a few when said punishment carries virtually ZERO deterrant value?
Taking away the wins doesn't hurt as a PSU fan. Taking away any chance for the program to be remotely competitive does.
I might be forgetting what I wrote, but I don't believe I said anywhere that Penn St. violated a "rule." Did I? I said they violated articles and bylaws. And, they did. If I did say they violated "rules," then I apologize. I'm bouncing back and forth here and may have typed "rule" by accident in typing out these posts quickly.
Baylor and the murder of Patrick Dennehy?
Arizona Ron
Footballguy
I don't believe the "many" were punished. The fans still have a football program or they can decide to be fans of another team. The players are free to leave if they like or stay and play. PSU will pay the fines, not the fans, students and players. The students academic are not directly impacted.
jwb
Footballguy
Remotely competitive as in a chance for a national title? Sure. But I'm not sure how punished one should feel. For example, Army starts every season with zero shot at a national title. A great season is 7-3. A decent one is 1-9, but a win over Navy. Do their fans feel punished because, in the face of bigger programs, they aren't competitive?
Maybe some perspective needs to change.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ramblin Wreck
Footballguy
It's about the football factory first. Priorities!
BigJohn
Footballguy
Not 'simply' about football. But to not include football is foolish.
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
What was the deterrent value of the penalties on, say, Memphis basketball for the misdeeds of Derrick Rose? Certainly they won't deter players from doing similar things in the future, and it can't deter Memphis since they had no way of knowing what Rose did. Situations like that happen all the time. You can rail against it if you want; just understand that what you're opposed to is NCAA practice generally, not the sanctions here. The only thing that's special about the Penn State case is the severity of the sanctions. Penn State fans and current players are not the first to be punished for doing nothing wrong, and they won't be the last. There is nothing special about their current predicament.
The football program is the main focus of this entire argument; not the fans, not the alumni, not the cheerleaders, etc. When you have this type of cover up all way up to the AD, the football program deserves the punishment that was handed down to them. If the NCAA did nothing about this situation, the entire college football nation, and general public would be in a complete uproar. No, it did not violoate any NCAA said "rules" as far as football goes, but this is a much bigger issue than "football". It's an issue of morality and the culture of the Penn State football program that was outed here.
So, yes, the NCAA making a statement by making sure the program suffers for years to come is just in my opinion. This game is a sport after everything is said and done, and the victims of this entire situation are the ones that are really suffering. To put this entire outcome on how it affects the "fans" is selfish when you look at the big picture of the situation at hand.
Last edited by a moderator:
Socrates11
Footballguy
The world just released a statement: Dear Paterno family, please stop with the statements.
E-Z Glider
Footballguy
Im going to take a wild guess here... Pitt fan?'Frenchy Fuqua said:
B-Deep
Footballguy
PSU should try and look at this as a chance to start moving on
The civil suits need settled, but this is harsh enough that it should help start the healing process for everyone there.
Yes, some people who are harmed were not "involved", but the institution was, and if you are part of that institution and benefit from the good times you are going to feel pain in the bad times. It is part of the inherent unfairness of an institution, sometimes bad people benefit when the group does well, sometimes good people hurt when it fails.
I sincerely hope healing can begin, for the victims and for the people at PSU.
The civil suits need settled, but this is harsh enough that it should help start the healing process for everyone there.
Yes, some people who are harmed were not "involved", but the institution was, and if you are part of that institution and benefit from the good times you are going to feel pain in the bad times. It is part of the inherent unfairness of an institution, sometimes bad people benefit when the group does well, sometimes good people hurt when it fails.
I sincerely hope healing can begin, for the victims and for the people at PSU.
The Future Champs
Footballguy
As a PSU alum I am sickened and ashamed by the entire scandal, and by everyone, from JoePa down to the janitors, who helped cover this up. The sanctions from the NCAA and the Big 10 seem like a joke in comparison to the damage done to our reputation. I'm not in the least bit surprised that the administration immediately agreed to the penalties. I think they'd agree to anything if it helped take this scandal off the front page.'Frenchy Fuqua said:
B-Deep
Footballguy
I hope things get better for you.I truly feel bad for people who loved this school and have to figure out what to think and what to do. Before anyone gets crazy obviously i do not feel as bad for them as i do for the vicitms.It must be hard though to think if you tell someone you are a PSU alum they'll think of Sandusky and Paterno, and the possibly assign to you the comments of some other alums who are in a denial pattern.That's why I think harsh punishments quickly assigned are good. Healing will come, and the process needs to start.The victim's law suits are going to be a painful time for everyone involved :(
gandalas
Footballguy
And even if he IS right and Penn State would win the court case, couldn't the NCAA just kick them out of the NCAA? It is a privilege to be a member school, not a right, correct?
Notorious T.R.E.
Showdown!™ Administrator
Yes, except for the whole harboring a serial rapist thing.
CrossEyed
Footballguy
If you think this is about football allegiances, you are part of the problem.
timschochet
Footballguy
If these restrictions essentially make Penn State a Division II football team (or whatever the proper term is these days) how will that affect the Big 10? Will Penn State essentially become the doormat of the Big 10 for the next several years?
The other question I'm wondering about is how this will affect attendence at the Penn State games. I imagine they'll still come out in droves this year. But will the season ticket holders still come out when Penn State is 0-9 and losing games by big margins?
What happened to SMU completely changed the football culture- but the Mustangs stopped playing other teams in the Southwest conference, and started playing much lesser opponents, which at least allowed them to be competitive. Penn State is still going to have to play Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. It's going to be ugly. Perhaps not this year, but pretty soon thereafter.
The other question I'm wondering about is how this will affect attendence at the Penn State games. I imagine they'll still come out in droves this year. But will the season ticket holders still come out when Penn State is 0-9 and losing games by big margins?
What happened to SMU completely changed the football culture- but the Mustangs stopped playing other teams in the Southwest conference, and started playing much lesser opponents, which at least allowed them to be competitive. Penn State is still going to have to play Michigan, Ohio State, Nebraska, etc. It's going to be ugly. Perhaps not this year, but pretty soon thereafter.
It's definitely not a right, but I haven't looked at the procedures for expulsion from the NCAA. I'm sure they have the authority to do so, but I don't know in which instances they can do it.And even if he IS right and Penn State would win the court case, couldn't the NCAA just kick them out of the NCAA? It is a privilege to be a member school, not a right, correct?
Joe Summer
Footballguy
I think that's a grey area. Paterno's knowledge of the 1998 incident is part of what makes the 2001 coverup so heinous.
cheese
Footballguy
It will be ugly against those 3, but all they do is become on the Indiana, Minnesota, etc tier of the league for several years. It's hardly unprecendented to have a doormat in that or any other league. Look at what teams have done to Duke for years in football.
Penn St. is going to be terrible. Maybe not next season (though, if they lose 10 players or more to transfer, they will), but beginning with the 2013-14 season, they are going to be awful. What recruit is going to want to be associated with that program? For next year's recruiting class, Penn St. is going to have to tell those recruits that, unless they redshirt (and I don't think PSU has the luxury to redshirt anyone anymore), they will never play in a bowl game, will never have the chance to win the national championship and will never have the chance to win a conference championship. For the following class, you'd have to tell them the above, but say, "you could do each of those during your senior season, four years from now, but not before then." Then, the following class, "in three years...", etc.
As each successive terrible recruiting class comes in (and tiny recruiting class comes in), they will have walk-on caliber players both on scholarship and playing major minutes. They will have no depth at all. And, they must hit on every single one of the recruits they do bring in or they will suck even worse. For each player they bring in, they need them to be there for all four years - no career injuries, no transfers, no academic ineligibility and no off the field arrests.
When the sanctions are over, it will take multiple seasons to build the roster up to 85 players unless they get a huge wave of transfers. So, even though they'll be capped at 65 for only four seasons, they won't have a full 85 (barring a ton of transfers) for 5, 6 or maybe 7 years. At that point, they will most likely be missing bowl games for up to 7 or 8 seasons.
This is going to be a painful next 5-10 years for the Penn St. is my prediction and most likely longer than that. This is crippling.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wadsworth
Footballguy
I agree. If the 2001 shower incident was the first knowledge Joe and PSU had of this type of criminal behavior and they had reported it to the authorities then I suspect the punishment for PSU would have been minor or non-existent. But since they did have knowledge of a previous investigation which alleged almost identical behavior, if they reported the 2001 incident they would have potentially faced much more serious punishment and loss of prestige(including potentially the end of Paterno as head coach at PSU). This is part of what makes the failure to act in 2001 so disgusting, because to any reasonable person if appears that they choose to protect PSU and themselves over protecting children from a pedophile.
Arizona Ron
Footballguy
Also, think about the football authletes that are going into high school as a freshman this year or next. By the time they're ready for college, PSU will be like Temple. So yes, after the sanctions are up, it's going to be another 5+ years before they're even thought of as a place for top talent football players.
E-Z Glider
Footballguy
For most people, no, but for some, absolutely. Joe was treated with God-like status for many years and many rival fans resented it. It would be impossible for someone who disliked Paterno for their entire life to pretend it now has no bearing at all on their feelings. The inverse is also true. Its human nature whether you want to admit it or not.
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
But there was no active cover-up in 1998. There was a criminal investigation by the police and child welfare by outside agencies. The investigation led to no charges because Sandusky and the kid's stories in that particular incident matched. I agree that knowledge of that investigation should have changed the way psu viewed 2001 (and i could get into other convo on this whole thing, but i wont for now) but psu itself did nothing wrong in 1998.
Last edited by a moderator:
Wadsworth
Footballguy
I also think that some fans of other schools were already sick of the holier than thou attitude that radiated from Penn State and Paterno. So there is a level of piling on, but that is a clearly minor part of the indignation.
Joe Summer
Footballguy
You can't compare SMU to PSU.SMU had stopped being competitive in the SWC way back in the '60s. They simply didn't have the resources to compete with the big boys, which is why they had to resort to the pay-for-play system in the first place. Once you took away that money, the blue-chip players had little reason to attend SMU.That's not the case with Penn State. Penn State still has great resources, and they've never had to pay players to convince them to play football there. Once the scholarships return, the blue chip players will return as well.
Socrates11
Footballguy
There is the opinion out there that Sandusky's golden parachute retirement deal with PSU was to hush everything up, with the police and child welfare people going along probably due to PSU football's popularity and not wanting to make waves, with Paterno having knowledge of the deal. I lean to this view. It doesn't seem normal that a very successful d-coordinator just retires in his prime without trying to make it as a head coach somewhere. I'm not buying he retired because Paterno told him he would never be his successor. If he was that good, why didn't he want to go to a different school and make his own mark? Whole series of events smells fishy.So if they hushed it up in 98, then it really puts the pressure on them to keep covering it up, like they did in 2001.
Godsbrother
Footballguy
Leeroy Jenkins
Footballguy
Well the Feech report that is apparently gospel states that samdusky had been made aware prior to the investigation that he wouldnt be the coach and his retirement was already in process.
