# Penn State/Sandusky report is out [merged]



## DeniseM (Jul 12, 2012)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-sandusky-freeh-report-20120712,0,4737004.story



> “Our most saddening and sobering finding is the total disregard for the safety and welfare of Sandusky's child victims by the most senior leaders at Penn State,” Freeh said. “The most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized.”
> 
> “In order to avoid the consequences of bad publicity, the most powerful leaders at the university — Spanier, Schultz, Paterno and Curley — repeatedly concealed critical facts relating to Sandusky's child abuse,” the report said.


----------



## normab (Jul 12, 2012)

This is sad to hear but not totally unexpected.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

For me, I was willing to let the facts come out before casting judgement on Paterno.  Now that I see the facts, I feel he also should be held accountable, at least in the eyes of public opinion, for what has occurred.

It will take a long time for Penn St. to overcome this series of events.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 12, 2012)

I cannot see how Penn State can EVER live down, let alone atone for the injustice it afforded those victims. I have read and heard from other sources that the only just punishment is the dissolution of Penn State- either the entire sports program or the entire university.

Seems fair to me.

Jim


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 12, 2012)

Back when the story first broke I immediately equated the Penn State atrocities to the Catholic Church's similar harboring of sick, twisted criminals and that hierarchy's complete disregard for innocent, absolutely defenseless victims.  Maybe it was unfair but I honestly couldn't fathom any other environment in which Jerry Sandusky could have thrived.  And that's exactly what he did, what he was allowed to do.  He thrived with the full knowledge that his powerful friends would protect him at all costs, because by protecting him they were protecting their sacred football program, their cash cow.

The only thing that surprises me in today's report is the disclosure related to the parcel of land that Penn State sold at cost to the Second Mile foundation.  But it sure fits the pattern of Penn State buying silence in one form or another.

I am glad, yes glad, to see that the Freeh Commission hasn't spared Joe Paterno.  Anybody who still believes that he was duped somehow, or a victim of circumstances over which he had no control, is delusional.

The NCAA has sanctioned university programs for transgressions far less heinous than what's occurred at Penn State.  Their rules allow for the ultimate sanction, The Death Penalty, in cases where the university does not exhibit institutional control.  Nothing less than The Death Penalty should be given to Penn State's football program.  IMO, like that of a few others here, the entire university should be punished on a grand scale.  But an NCAA Death Penalty should be the LEAST of their punishment.


----------



## Elan (Jul 12, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> The NCAA has sanctioned university programs for transgressions far less heinous than what's occurred at Penn State.  Their rules allow for the ultimate sanction, The Death Penalty, in cases where the university does not exhibit institutional control.  Nothing less than The Death Penalty should be given to Penn State's football program.  IMO, like that of a few others here, the entire university should be punished on a grand scale.  But an NCAA Death Penalty should be the LEAST of their punishment.



  I agree completely.  The "$500 handshakes", etc that transpired at SMU years ago (for which SMU football received the Death Penalty) seem pretty innocuous by comparison.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 12, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> For me, I was willing to let the facts come out before casting judgement on Paterno.



I am listening to the report on the radio and they are saying that Paterno was fully aware of all of the facts, and followed the original investigation closely - and then did nothing...


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> I am listening to the report on the radio and they are saying that Paterno was fully aware of all of the facts, and followed the original investigation closely - and then did nothing...


 
Recent development... Nike backs away from Paterno after results.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/nike-taking-paternos-name-off-172236514--ncaaf.html


----------



## theo (Jul 12, 2012)

*Higher authority...*



ace2000 said:


> ... I was willing to let the facts come out before casting judgement on Paterno.  Now that I see the facts, I feel he also should be held accountable... <snip>..



Joe Paterno may indeed *already* find himself being judged and held accountable by much higher authorties than the comparatively meaningless "court of pubic opinion".


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 12, 2012)

No excuses.   Football program must be shut down.  More heads must roll.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 12, 2012)

This is a sad tragedy and a strong indictment in my view against the mixing of college athletics with money and power.

While the Penn State scenario is the worst of the worst, how many other college athletic departments and universities have turned blind eyes to less heinous crimes, simply to keep the departments reputation strong or keep the money flowing?

This truly is a sad day for Penn State, its fans and for all college sports.  As others have suggested here, there needs to be a strong message sent, which may even include the closing of the Penn State sports program.


----------



## Patri (Jul 12, 2012)

Heads can roll. I have no problem with that. But why should students be punished for the actions of people over which they had no control or knowledge? If this happened in a public high school, should it be shut down and the kids carted off to another community?
Let the people responsible be punished, but 40,000 young people should not also become victims of the criminal behavior of adults. Fire the lot and hire new teachers, coaches, administrators etc. To close the college would also harm the city of State College. What did those citizens ever do to deserve to lose their jobs or business or homes?


----------



## ricoba (Jul 12, 2012)

Patri said:


> Heads can roll. I have no problem with that. But why should students be punished for the actions of people over which they had no control or knowledge? If this happened in a public high school, should it be shut down and the kids carted off to another community?



That's an interesting and I believe valid point.  Today's newspaper (the Las Vegas Review Journal) is reporting that the former head of Silverado High Schools softball team is being indicted on child porn and sexting charges with minors.  The citizens and families of the school and area would never consider closing down the whole school simply because of this mans crimes.


----------



## Luanne (Jul 12, 2012)

Patri said:


> Heads can roll. I have no problem with that. But why should students be punished for the actions of people over which they had no control or knowledge? If this happened in a public high school, should it be shut down and the kids carted off to another community?
> Let the people responsible be punished, but 40,000 young people should not also become victims of the criminal behavior of adults. Fire the lot and hire new teachers, coaches, administrators etc. To close the college would also harm the city of State College. What did those citizens ever do to deserve to lose their jobs or business or homes?



Are they actually talking about shutting down the entire school?  I've heard suggestions of shutting down the athletic program, but not the school.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 12, 2012)

ricoba said:


> That's an interesting and I believe valid point.  Today's newspaper (the Las Vegas Review Journal) is reporting that the former head of Silverado High Schools softball team is being indicted on child porn and sexting charges with minors.  The citizens and families of the school and area would never consider closing down the whole school simply because of this mans crimes.



I'd guess that what happened there is not on the same scope as what happened at Penn State.  But if it is and they've learned that this softball head's criminal actions had gone on for years, and have been known and protected by school administration members, then as a community member I'd want every single paid position at the school and administration to be replaced by people completely unconnected to the community.  Anything less leads to the appearance that the victims are not as important as the program.  Shouldn't the victims be worth much more, nevermind on at least an equal level?

I believe the Penn State football program needs to be shut down for at least five years - long enough to purge the culture that exists there and has been festering uncontested for too many years, long enough to field an entirely new team and coaching staff with no connection to the old.

I don't believe that the university should be shut down completely, but certainly all those who hold non-teaching administration and board positions need to be replaced.  Then the university should be placed in some type of receivership and a new oversight committee, made up of people unrelated to the community, can keep tabs on the new administration and board to ensure that the old culture is not allowed to re-establish itself.  I'd say a period of at least four academic years after football is re-introduced to the school should be sufficient.  And yes, there's a chance with this plan that innocent bystanders could be sacrificed.  But again, is that sacrifice anywhere near the atrocity of sacrificing victims to the football program?


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 12, 2012)

College was supposed to be educational. A sports program as a profit center and cash cow for the university? It seemed to enrich the employed staff, allowed the "pre-pro"s to travel and market their abilities, keep vendor's (and Fall Weekend local businesses) thriving, sell TV rights, build a complex from ticket sales, and become the modern day version of "The King's New Clothes".


----------



## Mel (Jul 12, 2012)

Patri said:


> Heads can roll. I have no problem with that. But why should students be punished for the actions of people over which they had no control or knowledge? If this happened in a public high school, should it be shut down and the kids carted off to another community?
> Let the people responsible be punished, but 40,000 young people should not also become victims of the criminal behavior of adults. Fire the lot and hire new teachers, coaches, administrators etc. To close the college would also harm the city of State College. What did those citizens ever do to deserve to lose their jobs or business or homes?


I've read a few op-ed pieces that suggest that even NCAA sanctions might not be necessary (though they should still happen).  But also, is the NCAA really in the position to impose sanctions - did Penn State violate any of their rules?  It is suggested that if the victims can be considered "prospective students" there many have been violations, but otherwise the NCAA doesn't really have a leg to stand on regarding sanctions.  All previous sanctions against any schools were predicated on violation of NCAA rules.

Instead, perhaps everyone should let things play themselves out.  Penn State's reputation has been severely tarnished.  Paterno is no longer there to run the football program that he and Sandusky built.  How many prospective players will shy away?  Recruiting will be far more difficult, and the NCAA can play their part by ensuring that they follow the rules regarding recruits.  

We will have to see what will happen with their supporters.  Many didn't want to believe what happened, but how many will now pull their support?  Without support, the football program dies a slow death.

Unfortunately no matter what happens, the other athletes and the students are all collateral damage. Without a football program, the university has less money for capital improvements as well as for scholarships for everyone else.  When that dries up, even the city will be hurt.  

Because it is a public university, perhaps the state is in a better position to do something, rather than the NCAA.


----------



## tlwmkw (Jul 12, 2012)

How do the "students" suffer if the sports program is closed?  They won't have a team to cheer on but otherwise it won't really hurt them.  Most of the football players are pushed through and never really get a good education anyway (as at most universities).  If you look at the reports over the years that have come out there is little benefit to students at a university from a high profile team- all the cash generated goes back into the football program ($3-4 million a year for a head coach alone plus special facilities for the players and other coaching staff as well as all the scholarships) and very little makes its way back to the rest of the university.  I think they should shut down the football program and concentrate on academics instead.  It's a very sad situation but I bet there are other programs that are just as bad but haven't come under the microscope. Hopefully this will be a wake up call to those other programs.  I'm glad that Penn is owning this and they are the ones who hired Freeh to do this report.  That is already a sign that they are on the right track.

jmho.  tlwmkw


----------



## ThreeLittleBirds (Jul 12, 2012)

Sadly, I don't think this is going to have the impact that it should.

I grew up in PA, and I know all too well how dedicated folks are to their beloveds there -- be it the church, football, school -- doesn't matter.

Much like the archdiocese of Philadelphia's coverup of long term molestation, the Penn State cover up will be pushed under the rug, and excuses will be made as to why football should continue, and why Joe Paterno should remain as a demigod in the eyes of the world. 

My own mother, a devout catholic, was involved in a conversation shortly after the grand jury investigation regarding the molestation coverups in her own church. These women went as far to say (and convince themselves) that the kids must have been lying.

Don't be shocked when such allegations against these Penn State kids comes up. 

Joe Paterno and the whole program will go on being viewed as golden angels in the eyes of many. Disgusting. I hope they all rot...


----------



## Sea Six (Jul 12, 2012)

Why is there no hate directed at McQueary, who actually witnessed Sanduskey in the act?  The others knew about it, but never witnessed it.  Mike was an adult and should be sharing the blame.


----------



## ThreeLittleBirds (Jul 12, 2012)

Sea Six said:


> Why is there no hate directed at McQueary, who actually witnessed Sanduskey in the act?  The others knew about it, but never witnessed it.  Mike was an adult and should be sharing the blame.



Because up until a few months ago, most of us had never even heard of him. On the flip side, most of us have heard of Joe Paterno, and have spent years witnessing the love, admiration, and respect the man was given. The fact that for the past 10 of those years he was covering up something so despicable brings about feelings of hate.


----------



## amycurl (Jul 12, 2012)

I do think that the Death Penalty for the football program would send a message both of punishment and of warning to other big time sports schools. 

And it would probably help the student body overall:
http://collegesportsbusinessnews.co...-biggest-scandal-in-american-higher-education


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 12, 2012)

Sea Six said:


> Why is there no hate directed at McQueary, who actually witnessed Sanduskey in the act?  The others knew about it, but never witnessed it.  Mike was an adult and should be sharing the blame.



For the same reason I don't have any hate for the janitor who also witnessed Sandusky in the act, the janitor who told the Grand Jury and the Freeh commission that even as a Korean War vet what he witnessed in the Penn State showers was the most disturbing thing he'd ever seen.

McQueary and the janitor were bit players at Penn State.  They knew that they were powerless to do anything, that it would be useless for them to involve authorities.  They knew that when authorities had been notified in the past, the most powerful men on that campus had been able to close ranks and protect the football program from "bad publicity."  They knew that "a culture of reverence" was at play and the only consequence of their reports would be their removal from Penn State.

I think McQueary deserves a great deal of the credit for Sandusky finally being exposed as a monster, and for exposing the culture that allowed Sandusky to use Penn State's football program as a shield to cover his criminal acts.  Neither McQueary nor the janitor walked away from what they saw without asking for counsel from people who were also enmeshed in that toxic community.  The janitor commiserated with his peers who agreed that he'd only be hurting himself if he went public.  McQueary insisted to his dad, another bit player who lived a lifetime in that community, that at the very least he needed to report what he'd seen to Joe Paterno and he needed his dad's help to do so.  I try to imagine the chutzpah (I guess that's the right word?) he had to summon in order to speak to Joe Paterno face-to-face about something that he'd been indoctrinated to ignore.  It couldn't have been easy.

All that said, I don't think that trying to understand McQueary and the janitor means that they are above reproach.  That's why I think the program needs to be shut down, because it's the cancerous culture that allowed probably otherwise good people to make very bad decisions.  And that's why I think that every person who held a position of power at Penn State while all this was going on, and those others who knew but believed they were powerless to do anything about it, probably can't look at themselves in the mirror.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

Sea Six said:


> Why is there no hate directed at McQueary, who actually witnessed Sanduskey in the act? The others knew about it, but never witnessed it. Mike was an adult and should be sharing the blame.


 
What do you hate about what he did? He saw the act and made sure it was stopped and then reported it to the authorities. I guess he could've tackled Sandusky right there on the spot, but who knows how we'd react at his age. He was just a young school-aged grad assistant at the time. 

If you're looking for hate, there's plenty of hate from Penn State fans towards McQuery since it was his testimony that brought all this out and basically convicted Sandusky during his trial. We know this because the jury asked for his testimony while deliberating.

One thing we'll never know though is what his thoughts have been since the incident occurred. He knew Sandusky was not punished for what he saw, but continued to stay on as a football coach. He could definitely be faulted for that, but I don't think we'll ever know all the facts about that.


----------



## jlf58 (Jul 12, 2012)

I called this in the first penn state thread a few months ago. Anyone who follows college football knows schools live and die by thier fotball program at this level. Paterno protected his football program, period !!!!


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 12, 2012)

For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.

Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.  

Let's say that a college intern saw it, and a custodian saw it, and reported it to the Department manager.  

Let's say the Dept. Mgr. reported it to the General Manager, and the Region Manager, and they all covered it up.  

Let's say that no one else in the department knew anything about it.

Let's say that tomorrow when you go into work, you will find out that your department has been eliminated because of the molestation and cover up, and everyone in the department has been fired.

That's fair and logical, right?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.
> 
> Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.
> 
> ...


 
Hey, how did Ride get access to Denise's TUG account?    :hysterical:

Talk about stirring the pot...


----------



## ricoba (Jul 12, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I'd guess that what happened there is not on the same scope as what happened at Penn State.  But if it is and they've learned that this softball head's criminal actions had gone on for years, and have been known and protected by school administration members, then as a community member I'd want every single paid position at the school and administration to be replaced by people completely unconnected to the community.  Anything less leads to the appearance that the victims are not as important as the program.  Shouldn't the victims be worth much more, nevermind on at least an equal level?



You are right, it's not the same scope.  I was reflecting on what Patri had posted.  But it is an interesting point you make about what and if anything school administrators knew about this coach.  And if they did know, how did they deal with it?

In Los Angeles Unified School District the new Superintendent did exactly as you spoke about, fired all the school staff regarding a terrible incidence of sexual abuse by an elementary school teacher.  I believe he considered that the school had a culture of conspiracy of silence and corruption/cover up.

Here is the link: http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...-staff-canned-over-classroom-sex-allegations/


----------



## ricoba (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.
> 
> Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.
> 
> ...



As I was posting a reply, you posted this.  But this is exactly what John Deasy, the new Superintendent of LAUSD did with regard to the sick/disgusting situation at Miramonte Elementary. 

 Not sure what the final outcome will be, but he let everyone go to send a message that sexual abuse of children will not be tolerated.  Not sure what the teachers union will do etc...

I agree it's extreme, and I am not sure if it's the right response, but it does give a serious response to a very serious problem.  

Here again is the same link I just posted.http://latino.foxnews.com/latino/ne...-staff-canned-over-classroom-sex-allegations/


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 12, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Hey, how did Ride get access to Denise's TUG account?    :hysterical:
> 
> Talk about stirring the pot...



Seriously?  You think I only posted this to "stir the pot?"

You think I am defending Sandusky and the others?  Really?

My point was about punishing people who had nothing to do with what happened.  It is a perfectly good analogy.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 12, 2012)

ricoba said:


> As I was posting a reply, you posted this.  But this is exactly what John Deasy, the new Superintendent of LAUSD did with regard to the sick/disgusting situation at Miramonte Elementary.
> 
> Not sure what the final outcome will be, but he let everyone go to send a message that sexual abuse of children will not be tolerated.  Not sure what the teachers union will do etc...
> 
> ...



If you read the entire article, it appears that the school closure and firings were actually more of a temporary closure during the investigation - or that the superintendent had to rescind his decision later -  so the school really isn't closed and they aren't really fired.



> The teachers, who were warehoused at another location, *may now return to the classroom at Miramonte or another school*, Deasy said.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> Seriously?  You think I only posted this to "stir the pot?"
> 
> You think I am defending Sandusky and the others?  Really?
> 
> My point was about punishing people who had nothing to do with what happened.  It is a perfectly good analogy.



Well, that's a scenario that will definitely stir the discussion up a bit.  No, I don't think you're defending Sandusky or anyone else.  I feel that you're saying that killing the football program or punishing the university employees is extreme.  Please don't take offense, only trying to liven it up a bit.

The big difference between your scenario and the Penn St. scenario - is that with Penn State the consensus is that the cover up was done to protect the football program and the reputation of the university.  That's why many feel the football program should be canned as punishment.  

I personally feel that the football program should remain, but that Penn St university should be held legally accountable.  That's where you're gonna hurt them the most.  And in the end, the football program will feel this for many years anyway, just let it all play out.

Now, the big question is what is the school going to do with Paterno... what happens to the statue and the all the references to JoePa around the campus?  It'll be interesting to watch it unfold.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.
> 
> Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.
> 
> ...



I'm having a hard time equating a place of employment that normally wouldn't be expected to have an ingrained culture based on competition (sometime unhealthy) and idolatry (again unhealthy) with a college football program that by its very nature does have that ingrained culture to some degree.

In the employment scenario that you describe I would expect that the assailant and all others who knew of his/her actions would be investigated by criminal authorities and charged or not as the investigation warranted, and their positions filled in due time by the higher-ups in the company.  Beyond that, there isn't any jurisdiction that I know of that would have the power to disband the entire department, unless the company hierarchy was to determine that it was non-essential and they'd shut it down and re-assign those duties elsewhere in the company.

At Penn State criminal authorities are in the midst of investigating and bringing charges, which is what should have happened years ago but didn't because those in powerful positions didn't allow it.  But the difference between Penn State and a private corporation is that there is an oversight committee which can exert influence on the university and/or its football program, sometimes resulting in injury to innocent bystanders with connections to the program.  The NCAA is charged with investigating ethical matters at colleges/universities and each school that contracts to be a member of the NCAA agrees to that oversight by acceptance of the charter.  It appears that there is established reason and precedence for the NCAA to sanction Penn State, severely, for these incidents that seem at the least to be contrary to the "institutional control" that the NCAA expects of its members.

We have to remember, "fair and logical" isn't always at play with NCAA sanctions.  The current members of sanctioned programs are made to suffer for the improprieties of former members.  It's sad but that's the way it is.  I don't understand, though, why those who might suffer that fate at Penn State aren't putting the blame on those who deserve it - Jerry Sandusky and the cast of characters who protected him and allowed the program to be dragged to the depths of depravity.


----------



## Elan (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.
> 
> Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.
> 
> ...



  The coaching staff is new.  They all knew of the ongoing investigation at the time of their hiring.  As for the players, I presume the NCAA would rule that they would all be eligible for immediate transfer to other D1 programs.

  Mel's point that it's possible that the NCAA may not have any grounds for penalizing the program is valid.  But if they do, I don't see any reason why they shouldn't.


----------



## Elan (Jul 12, 2012)

I'll add this:  If the findings in today's report are indeed accurate, PSU stands to get reamed in civil court.


----------



## am1 (Jul 12, 2012)

I'm still in support of the death penalty.  It is meant to punish the school and send a message to others.  

I will no longer watch Penn State football games.  Thankfully they will be regulated to the BIG 10 network which I do not get.  

When are the pensions revoked?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 12, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> I personally feel that the football program should remain, *but that Penn St university should be held legally accountable.  That's where you're gonna hurt them the most.*  And in the end, the football program will feel this for many years anyway, just let it all play out.





Elan said:


> I'll add this:  If the findings in today's report are indeed accurate, PSU stands to get reamed in civil court.



That's exactly my point.  We won't have to worry about justice being served in this matter.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 12, 2012)

am1 said:


> I'm still in support of the death penalty.  It is meant to punish the school and send a message to others.
> 
> I will no longer watch Penn State football games.  Thankfully they will be regulated to the BIG 10 network which I do not get.
> 
> When are the pensions revoked?



I watch almost NO FOOTBALL or other professional/college sports. I can barely get thru a Little League game. 

"Poison fruit" will be harvested via civil lawsuits actions. It will most likely bankrupt either the university coffers or the state treasury. 

Are Penn State pensions paid by as civil service or is the Pension funded by the university? Penn State, if it went bankrupt, would be then just like the scores of other companies who lost everything. Happy Valley would be not so happy anymore.

PS Wish I had 10% of Joe Pa's widow's pension.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 12, 2012)

I believe the NCAA has the power to shut the football program down.  I think it SHOULD be shut down for several years AS an EXAMPLE to all the other colleges and universities where Football is king because of money and there is no respect for integrity or the law.  There are many other places of "higher education" that would benefit from seeing one of their own receive a smack down.  

The report blames everyone in power including the Board of Trustees.  As I remember, after Paterno was fired there were numerous rallies from the faithful football fans.  Paterno apparently lied under oath to the grand jury.  Paterno apparently concealed the facts to the detriment of children who were being molested.  

Yes, children continued to be molested because JOE PATERNO AND PENN STATE FAILED TO OBEY THE LAW AND ACT WITH THE SMALLEST AMOUNT OF INTEGRITY AND MORALITY.

This is an institutional problem.  The institution is college football at  Penn State.   The institution must be shut down, punished, lose money, lose respect, and lose the devotion of the faithful.  They all must learn in no uncertain terms that football wins does not earn you the title of Mother Theresa.

There is no other way to put it.  They stink with grief of the children whose trust they betrayed and whose lives they ruined.  They stink.  The Institution stinks.   

This report couldn't be more damning of the people and the place.

Enough is Enough!  Shut them down.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 12, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> If you read the entire article, it appears that the school closure and firings were actually more of a temporary closure during the investigation - or that the superintendent had to rescind his decision later -  so the school really isn't closed and they aren't really fired.



Yes, I had heard something to that effect, but did not see it in the article since I was only using the article as an example of drastic measures that may occur in what were chilling circumstances.


----------



## Patri (Jul 12, 2012)

Luanne said:


> Are they actually talking about shutting down the entire school?  I've heard suggestions of shutting down the athletic program, but not the school.



No, that is just what some people advocate. We don't need lynch mobs destroying everything in their path to teach a lesson. There would be many innocent victims.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jul 13, 2012)

It would be extreme to eliminate the football program but something extreme short of that needs to be done. It just amazes me how so many of our society leaders turn out to be immoral and greedy. That is what it comes down to, these men did not want to lose their prestige and power so they looked the other way. To think that so many knew and could have prevented many of these horrible events its inexcuable.  Penn state will be paying 10s of millions to clean this up.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 13, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> I believe the NCAA has the power to shut the football program down.  I think it SHOULD be shut down for several years AS an EXAMPLE to all the other colleges and universities where Football is king because of money and there is no respect for integrity or the law.  There are many other places of "higher education" that would benefit from seeing one of their own receive a smack down.
> 
> The report blames everyone in power including the Board of Trustees.  As I remember, after Paterno was fired there were numerous rallies from the faithful football fans.  Paterno apparently lied under oath to the grand jury.  Paterno apparently concealed the facts to the detriment of children who were being molested.
> 
> ...



You know, you and I have not seen eye-to-eye a couple of times here on TUG, but in this matter I think I am in full agreement with your idea and assessment of the situation.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 13, 2012)

The football program needs to be shut down.  One of my best friends who was the best man in my wedding is a Penn State grad and he agrees that the football program needs to be shut down.  If the NCAA doesn't do it, then the university should do it as an example to the remainder of the student body that had nothing to do with this that they're reprioritizing back to the students.  If this happened at my school I would advocate the same thing


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 13, 2012)

I look at what went down recently at Ohio State.  Peanuts compared to this.  Ohio State was penalized and not allowed to be in any bowl contention this next season.  Many were penalized for the acts of few. It sucks, but that is how it goes.  

I don't know the answer to how this should be treated, but if something heavy handed doesn't come down, and swiftly, what's to stop it from happening again?


----------



## Mel (Jul 13, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> The football program needs to be shut down.  One of my best friends who was the best man in my wedding is a Penn State grad and he agrees that the football program needs to be shut down.  If the NCAA doesn't do it, then the university should do it as an example to the remainder of the student body that had nothing to do with this that they're reprioritizing back to the students.  If this happened at my school I would advocate the same thing


If the football program is to be shut down, I think it would be a much stronger message for it to be done voluntarily by the trustees.  Not because they see any writing on the wall, but because they want to do the right thing.

It would tell the current students that the function of the school is to educate, and if football gets in the way of education it has to go.

It would tell the alumni the same thing - we value your money and input, but our primary purpose is to educate those students who are currently on campus.  We will miss your money if you choose to withdraw your support, but if you do, it signals that you were not supporting our primary purpose.

It would tell the victims and their families that the trustees take the situation seriously, and will not attempt to brush it all under the proverbial rug. 

If the NCAA forces a shut down (they can ban NCAA participation, but they really can't force U Penn to completely eliminate the program), it will be seen as a punishment from outside, and the trustees will be seen as weak and reactive instead of proactive.  They have fired those directly involved, but they need to deal with the atmosphere that allowed this to happen.  That means sending one type of message to the students and alumni, and a very different one to the victims - not just those who came forward, but however many others are out there as well.


----------



## lvhmbh (Jul 13, 2012)

I'm not worried about the football program but AM worried about the players some of whom went there to play football hoping to make the NFL... BUT also wanted a good education.  Now if they shut it down and let the kids transfer - that would be different.  JMHO, Linda


----------



## jlr10 (Jul 13, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> For those of you that want to shut down the entire football program - let's say this happened at your place of employment.
> 
> Let's say that in your department where 100 people work, one of the Asst. managers was bringing in kids after hours and molesting them.
> 
> ...



I worked in an office where he owner "allegedly" used the trust fund as a personal an operational fund (Only an allegation because, although he fully admitted it, he has not been convicted... yet.)  Seems all the sales people knew what was happening but were fully fine to let it continue as they were getting higher commissions there than anywhere else.  But when the trust fund finally had no money, when it should have had millions, they cried foul and decided to go somewhere else, and they left in mass, because it was "the only correct thing to do to uphold their fiduciary responsibility to their clients."  They seemed to have no problem with their clients money being used illegally until it hurt thme.  Only after they began losing money and were able to find a new money stream did they leave.  Then they called the department of insurance to file complaints,  A multimillion dollar agency (on paper at least) was closed in 10 days.

As one of the 'little guys' who got caught without a job in a difficult employment market I was pretty darn ticked off.  But I was even madder that those who knew what was going on had no problem with it until it hurt them personally, they didn't even have the decency to warn others what was happening.  They were aware and not punished, I was not but was left with back pay due and no job.  In the long run most of them aren't happy (they now have to live with tarnished reputations and have to follow rules, which they didn't before *because they kept silent on the indiscretions in return for free reign.*)  I was able to find another job, which had a much better environment, keep my reputation intact and no longer have to work with those who's only consideration was themselves. But I would have been happier if the department of insurance had been called in first and shut the who thing down upfront so that everyone in the agency was in the same boat.  If I had my choice I would rather not have that employer on my resume, as even though I was unaware I still feel guilty by association.

IMHO, the entire football program should be shut down.  It was a cash cow for the university.  Maybe the football program was the one who got all the football money but the reputation of the football program was a draw for potential students, alumni, and donors.  The fact that administrators seemed to be aware shows the culture of the school.  So let the school show they have changed by removing the temptation of their football reputation by voluntarily closing the program on their own.  The employees will suffer whether keep or lose their jobs.  Do you honestly think that people are going to want to stay in an environment where the reputation is so sorely tarnished?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Mel said:


> If the football program is to be shut down, I think it would be a much stronger message for it to be done voluntarily by the trustees.  Not because they see any writing on the wall, but because they want to do the right thing.
> 
> It would tell the current students that the function of the school is to educate, and if football gets in the way of education it has to go.
> 
> ...



Excellent post, another for the "like" button.  It also would tell everyone that the Trustees are finally willing and able to do the jobs they're meant to do.  I still think that every sitting board member needs to be replaced because only a thorough purging of the football program and administration will deliver the message that the past culture will no longer be tolerated, but until the replacements are installed the current board should be doing the right thing.  Long past the time it should have been done, of course, but better late than never.

What happens now, how does it work if/when the Courts settle the civil suits that are guaranteed to suck every dollar out of the school?  With Penn State being a state institution is there the threat of taxpayer money that would not normally be allocated to the school, now being diverted to cover the settlements?  Does this have implications that will reach that far, or will the settlements be limited to only what's in the school coffers?  (What a word - "only" - the football program brought billions to the school over the years!)  Although, because the state authorities did not take action when they did have some limited knowledge, is what I'm asking a moot point because the state does share some of the responsibility?


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 13, 2012)

Mel said:


> ... U Penn ......



U of Penn is NOT a state school, but a PRIVATE university which was founded by Benj Franklin and is part of the Ivy League. It is located in Philadephia - in the university city area next to Drexel University.

I think you ment Penn State...


----------



## geekette (Jul 13, 2012)

vacationhopeful said:


> U of Penn is NOT a state school, but a PRIVATE university which was founded by Benj Franklin and is part of the Ivy League. It is located in Philadephia - in the university city area next to Drexel University.
> 
> I think you ment Penn State...



Can I play What If for a minute, tho?  What If PennSt were a state school - would taxpayers be on the hook for damages/settlements once the school money is gone?

just curious.  bad crap happens at schools and I had not considered my tax dollars going to such a thing.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

geekette said:


> Can I play What If for a minute, tho?  What If PennSt were a state school - would taxpayers be on the hook for damages/settlements once the school money is gone?
> 
> just curious.  bad crap happens at schools and I had not considered my tax dollars going to such a thing.


 
Penn St is a state school.  I'm sure they get state funding.  So, does that state funding go directly to the lawsuit?  No.  However, indirectly... yes.  

It would be interesting to know what kind of reserves the school has currently.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 13, 2012)

Penn State is a public school - the post you referenced was about the University of Penn.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Penn St is a state school.  I'm sure they get state funding.  So, does that state funding go directly to the lawsuit?  No.  However, indirectly... yes.
> 
> It would be interesting to know what kind of reserves the school has currently.



Geekette asked the same thing I was asking.  Are you saying that the settlements can/will only be paid out to a cap consisting of whatever funds are in the school's coffers now?  Or can/will state funds be used to cover any settlements over and above what's in the school coffers?


----------



## Elan (Jul 13, 2012)

If this article is to be believed, I was mistaken in my earlier presumption that the victims would be awarded large damages in civil court:

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/penn-state-faces-5m-in-sex-case-settlements/


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 13, 2012)

It's all the same - the dollars in the school's reserves are state funds.

Now that you know that the tax payers are paying for this, is your opinion different?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Geekette asked the same thing I was asking.  Are you saying that the settlements can/will only be paid out to a cap consisting of whatever funds are in the school's coffers now?  Or can/will state funds be used to cover any settlements over and above what's in the school coffers?



No, I am not saying there is any cap.  I'm just curious if the school has enough in reserves to easily accommodate the lawsuits.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

Elan said:


> If this article is to be believed, I was mistaken in my earlier presumption that the victims would be awarded large damages in civil court:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/penn-state-faces-5m-in-sex-case-settlements/



Guess it depends on your definition of what the word large means.  They're estimating the damages and settlements at $5M for the potential lawsuits.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> It's all the same - the dollars in the school's reserves are state funds.
> 
> Now that you know that the tax payers are paying for this, is your opinion different?



You can say that to a certain degree.  A state school brings in revenue also in tuition and other sources.  One could even say that the football attendance will help pay for it all.  Who knows how they're going to communicate how they're going to pay for it.


----------



## geekette (Jul 13, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> It's all the same - the dollars in the school's reserves are state funds.
> 
> Now that you know that the tax payers are paying for this, is your opinion different?



Of course not.

Were I a PA resident, I would prefer my tax dollars go to actual victims vs the never-employed, never-married baby momma of 8 looking for food stamps.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Elan said:


> If this article is to be believed, I was mistaken in my earlier presumption that the victims would be awarded large damages in civil court:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/penn-state-faces-5m-in-sex-case-settlements/



I think I disagree with the premise in that article that "a $500,000 settlement for some of these victims is probably substantial.”  Perhaps that's a substantial amount for a singular act of child sex abuse, but the mitigating factor here is that a large-scale cover-up was committed by several powerful people in order to protect their program that harbored the pedophile responsible for unknown numbers of criminal acts against multiple victims over a period of years.  This situation so closely mirrors the Catholic Church scandal, and hundreds of millions have been awarded in those settlements.  There's no reason to think that those settlements won't be the precedence for what's settled against Penn State.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

DeniseM said:


> It's all the same - the dollars in the school's reserves are state funds.
> 
> Now that you know that the tax payers are paying for this, is your opinion different?



No.  It's sad and unfair, but the taxpayers are simply more innocent victims of the culture that was embraced and allowed to flourish at Penn State.  What's equally sad is that the majority who embraced the culture will probably never place the blame squarely where it belongs*, on the Penn State football program leaders and certain members of the administration.

*Of course Jerry Sandusky is to blame first and foremost.  But I'm talking here about what will ultimately be responsible for the difference between a $500K typical settlement and the millions I would expect.  If I was on the jury that's what I'd award, anyway.


----------



## Elan (Jul 13, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Guess it depends on your definition of what the word large means.  They're estimating the damages and settlements at $5M for the potential lawsuits.



  $5M is chump change at a school like PSU.  I would guess their football coaching staff alone draws that in annual salary.  

  BTW, PSU took in over $200M in donations in the last fiscal yr:  

  "In a year marred with controversy and national notoriety, Penn State University alumni and boosters finally have something to smile about.

In fiscal year 2011-2012, the school earned $208.7 million in donations -- the second-highest annual amount in school history -- according to a release from the Development and Alumni Relations division."


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

Elan said:


> $5M is chump change at a school like PSU.  I would guess their football coaching staff alone draws that in annual salary.
> 
> BTW, PSU took in over $200M in donations in the last fiscal yr:
> 
> ...



Perhaps you're right.  What you're not factoring in is the hit on enrollment that the school is going to suffer because of this.  That will probably do more financial damage than the lawsuits.  Then think about donations also.

Think about how many students choose Penn St just because they have a good football team or the prestige of the school.  If this episode impacts the football team and/or the school's prestige, which it will, that will mean far more in lost revenue.  It may not be right that students choose a school because of big college sports, but it's reality.


----------



## Elan (Jul 13, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I think I disagree with the premise in that article that "a $500,000 settlement for some of these victims is probably substantial.”



  I agree.  At the time of my earlier post I was assuming that damages would be in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions.  We shall see.

  It will be very strange if PSU gets away with no sanctions against the football team and less than $10M in damages.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Perhaps you're right.  What you're not factoring in is the hit on enrollment that the school is going to suffer because of this.  That will probably do more financial damage than the lawsuits.  Then think about donations also.
> 
> Think about how many students choose Penn St just because they have a good football team or the prestige of the school.  If this episode impacts the football team and/or the school's prestige, which it will, that will mean far more in lost revenue.  It may not be right that students choose a school because of big college sports, but it's reality.



Earlier in the thread (#19) ThreeLittleBirds talked about how difficult it will be for the culture to be overcome.  I've been thinking about the generational pull of Penn State, about how many alumni may have been pressured by their families to continue the Penn State tradition, and about how many future college students might be forced to kowtow to such familial pressure despite their own private misgivings.

There are so many different angles to this sordid mess.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Elan said:


> I agree.  At the time of my earlier post I was assuming that damages would be in the tens, if not hundreds, of millions.  We shall see.
> 
> It will be very strange if PSU gets away with no sanctions against the football team and less than $10M in damages.



Completely agree.  I think your original premise will be proven correct.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> No, I am not saying there is any cap.  I'm just curious if the school has enough in reserves to easily accommodate the lawsuits.



Ah, got it.  Thanks.


----------



## zinger1457 (Jul 13, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Perhaps you're right.  What you're not factoring in is the hit on enrollment that the school is going to suffer because of this.  That will probably do more financial damage than the lawsuits.  Then think about donations also.
> 
> Think about how many students choose Penn St just because they have a good football team or the prestige of the school.  If this episode impacts the football team and/or the school's prestige, which it will, that will mean far more in lost revenue.  It may not be right that students choose a school because of big college sports, but it's reality.



There may be some students that will choose another school over Penn State but like most top colleges they will always turn away many more students then they accept, even with this scandal.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 13, 2012)

Interesting skimming through the Paterno-worshipping comments in the R.I.P. Paterno thread then skimming through the decidedly more subdued comments here. I hope that after this very through investigation, we will see the fawning over this man who put his football program over the welfare of children dissolve, as well as his formerly larger-than-life legacy.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 13, 2012)

Elan said:


> If this article is to be believed, I was mistaken in my earlier presumption that the victims would be awarded large damages in civil court:
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2012/07/penn-state-faces-5m-in-sex-case-settlements/


 
Maybe you want to go back to your original estimate... this one says $100M.

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/ncaaf-...ky-victims-cost-joe-paterno-freeh-report.html


----------



## Mel (Jul 13, 2012)

vacationhopeful said:


> U of Penn is NOT a state school, but a PRIVATE university which was founded by Benj Franklin and is part of the Ivy League. It is located in Philadephia - in the university city area next to Drexel University.
> 
> I think you ment Penn State...


Yes, I did... sorry, was up very early this morning dealing with kids.  How long until they go back?  53 days and counting!  I'm looking forward to that even more than the next vacation!


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 13, 2012)

I do not believe that the innocent should be punished along with the guilty.  

Not all Germans were Nazis.  When Hitler ran for election, only 30% of Dachau voted for Hitler.  However, all Dachau was held accountable for the atrocities at Dachau.  All Germans suffered as a consequence of WW2.

Very few people who worked for Bernie Madoff knew about his massive Ponzi scheme until the market collapse of 2008.  However, everyone who worked for Madoff lost their job when his evil deeds were uncovered.

There are numerous other examples that can be cited regarding the cruel and seemingly unfair nature of justice in our world as it has existed.  Penn State and all people living in the State of Pennsylvania will suffer as the civil litigation begins.  This has tarnised not only Penn State but the entire State of Pensylvania will suffer just as the Catholic Church has suffered.  (I attended a Catholic university and every priest I met seemed to be a sincere and deeply committed Christian.  Unfortunately, the entire church has suffered for the sins of a few.)

I also attended The University of Chicago.  The Monsters Of The Midway have been long gone.  The University of Chicago made the decision that varsity athletics such as football detracted from the academic nature of the institution.  The University of Chicago remains well endowed and is a fabulous institution for higher education and research. 

Firing the entire staff of the Penn State football program is certainly appropriate.  Perhaps, the entire football program at Penn State should be shut down.  However, the current players should not lose their scholarships.  If the Penn State football program is shut down, the current players should be allowed to continue their education at Penn State with their scholarships intact.  Very few college football players make it to the pros, even at a school like Penn State.


----------



## Patri (Jul 13, 2012)

Can someone get inside the heads of the four? I just don't understand how they thought the truth would never come out, unless for some reason they believed Sandusky had stopped. Despite their loyalty to the football program and Penn State as a whole, they all knew boys grew up. They all knew people talk. They all knew computer and phone records are never private, and that paper trails can be followed. They all knew the other three had some knowledge about Sandusky, so most likely other adults did too, which could mean a leak at some point.

It is just unfathomable the four thought the secret was safe if they also knew Sandusky was continuing to prey on children.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Patri said:


> Can someone get inside the heads of the four? I just don't understand how they thought the truth would never come out, unless for some reason they believed Sandusky had stopped. Despite their loyalty to the football program and Penn State as a whole, they all knew boys grew up. They all knew people talk. They all knew computer and phone records are never private, and that paper trails can be followed. They all knew the other three had some knowledge about Sandusky, so most likely other adults did too, which could mean a leak at some point.
> 
> It is just unfathomable the four thought the secret was safe if they also knew Sandusky was continuing to prey on children.



I think in that way they were all as deluded by that culture as anybody.  They truly believed that they were important enough that however they chose to deal with Sandusky, they would be protected by their stature in the community.  Despite knowing enough to try to cover their tracks, they believed that if/when the story got out there would be an outpouring of sympathy for the position that Sandusky put them in.  They knew that the community's success rested on the success of the football program, and they believed that they would be forgiven for misplacing their priorities in order to protect the program and thus, the community.

In some ways they were correct in their thinking - there are still many, many people in that local community as well as nationwide members of similar communities who believe that these four most powerful men at Penn State were victims of circumstance, and that the football program does not deserve the ultimate punishment.  It's a powerful thing to overcome, that kind of cancerous culture that festers beyond all reason.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 13, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> I attended a Catholic university and every priest I met seemed to be a sincere and deeply committed Christian.  Unfortunately, the entire church has suffered for the sins of a few.



I suppose it depends on how one defines "few", since the coverups of the rampant abuses across the U.S. goes all the way to the top of the Catholic Church.  Penn St. Football is a religion to many, so in their eyes they too may find a way to rationalize and parse and qualify and justify this despicable evil.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 13, 2012)

I hate what the Catholic Church has done regarding sexual abuse, but Penn. State is much, much worse.  At least, the Church shuttled offending priests off to somewhere else (the problem being that they didn't always ensure that the offenders never got access to children again).  Penn. State didn't even do that much.  If they couldn't face the criticism Penn State would get, they could have told Sandusky to go quietly or they would make it public.  The man would have left.  IMO, it would have been Penn State's responsibility to make sure their recomendation wasn't glowing----but they didn't do that.

At a high school I was teaching at, when the new principal learned that a coach was abusing boys, he immediately took action....but he couldn't get any member of the team to press charges.  Therefore, the principal had no legal tools to use, so he used various adjustments in schedule/duties/title that he did have access to, and the coach chose to leave.  He was, for some reason, not able to obtain another coaching position in spite of his having been one of the most successful high school coaches in the country.  I've never asked the principal why that was the case, but I assume the recomendation somehow managed to convey that the coach should not be hired without leaving the school/principal open to charges of libel.

Penn State chose not to act, and for that, they are truly at fault.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I suppose it depends on how one defines "few", since the coverups of the rampant abuses across the U.S. goes all the way to the top of the Catholic Church.  Penn St. Football is a religion to many, so in their eyes they too may find a way to rationalize and parse and qualify and justify this despicable evil.



At least those of us who feel we were betrayed by our Church and have chosen to leave the Church can still rely on the foundations of our faith to get us through; we haven't lost everything by choosing to not attend Mass or support our local parishes.  The betrayal by all those associated with the Penn State football scandal might actually affect those faithful followers on a greater scale - what will they rely on if the program is shut down?

(I don't want to be misunderstood here - IMO the Catholic Church scandal is infinitely more heinous and unforgivable than the Penn State scandal.  But that's because one personally affected me to a much greater degree than the other ever could, and I truly cannot comprehend that kind of worship of a sports entity.  I think it's still important to recognize the extent to which the Penn State scandal may be affecting those closely connected to it.)


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 13, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I suppose it depends on how one defines "few", since the coverups of the rampant abuses across the U.S. goes all the way to the top of the Catholic Church.  Penn St. Football is a religion to many, so in their eyes they too may find a way to rationalize and parse and qualify and justify this despicable evil.



I was not attempting to minimize or pardon the actions of the Catholic Church.  The main point of my epistle was to point out that innocent people often suffer consequences when the guilty are punished.  This is sometimes unavoidable.  Every citizen of Pennsylvania will be punished once the civil litigation begins.  This is necessary if justice is to be served.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 13, 2012)

I want to make a simple suggestion that we not post about the Catholic Church scandal.  While there may or may not be similarities, the Church issue is legal and religious and as such, it's kind of a no-no here.  

Just want to keep the thread from being closed.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 13, 2012)

Any talk of shutting down Penn St. is a bit extreme. I would not think there would be any serious considerations as such. But an NCAA-imposed death penalty to the football program, that is very intriguing and I would love to see it, provided they have legal cover to do so.  Maybe 5 seasons of no games, no scholarships, no nothing for the football program.


----------



## zinger1457 (Jul 14, 2012)

PStreet1 said:


> I hate what the Catholic Church has done regarding sexual abuse, but Penn. State is much, much worse.  At least, the Church shuttled offending priests off to somewhere else (the problem being that they didn't always ensure that the offenders never got access to children again).



Not defending what the officials at Penn State did but the sexual abuse cases of the Catholic Church number in the 1000's and was swept under the rug for decades.  And that's just in the US.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 14, 2012)

*Board of Trustees*

IMO, I think the Board of Trustees has actually done a fairly admirable job with this situation.  After the grand jury testimony came out last fall, they acted fairly quickly to include firing the president and Paterno.  At the time nobody really knew what Paterno's involvement entailed and they came under a lot of fire for firing him.  The night he was fired there were riots on the campus and members of the Board of Trustees subsequently received a lot of death threats and they were vilified for firing the beloved Paterno.

They then went out and found the most impeccable person they could find and commissioned him and paid him millions to do an independent investigation.  By all accounts they gave Louis Freed complete autonomy and access to everything and everyone.  They didn't request a private review of Mr. Freed's report and they learned of its contents at the same time everybody else did.  They have been completely transparent in this process.  I think they knew this report could be damning and that it would make them very legally vulnerable, but they did the stand up thing (something Paterno failed to do) and they commissioned it anyway.  

I believe they've set up some sort of victim fund and I think they've contacted the known victims and have begun discussions about financial compensation.  Granted they're probably being proactive regarding civil suits, but it does look like they're taking the course of action to not duel this out in court with the victims.  It appears that they really want to do what they can to help out and compensate the victims and they're not fighting the universities culpability.

By all accounts it appears the Board of Trustees was kept in the dark about all of this by the gang of 4 including the President, VP, AD and Paterno who perpetrated the cover up.

They still have work to do by removing the statue and shutting the football program down.  If they do that I would really praise them and give them an A+ for how they've handled this situation.  As it stands right now, I still would give them a solid B. 

I just think they've been unfairly vilified to this point.  They've been handed an unimaginable horrible situation and IMO they've dealt with it in a very admirable and stand up way to this point.


----------



## Patri (Jul 14, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I just think they've been unfairly vilified to this point.  They've been handed an unimaginable horrible situation and IMO they've dealt with it in a very admirable and stand up way to this point.



However, I do think anyone who was on the board when the 1998 and 2001 news was out should step down. Spanier ruled the board with an iron fist, and no one questioned him or acted independently. Being a trustee appears to have been more an elite title to add to a resume. If those men and women didn't have the courage to behave responsibly then, it's too easy to take a stand now, when it is the only course of action to take.


----------



## lvhmbh (Jul 14, 2012)

In the paper today a lawyer from another college was saying that if Paterno was alive he could be tried for perjury.  It was also suggested that his estate could be sued as it is a very wealthy estate.


----------



## Mosca (Jul 14, 2012)

All we can say for sure at this point is that it is far from over. IMO the report is as damning toward Paterno as it could possibly be, short of finding him participating along with Sandusky. And it is equally damning toward the administrator of Penn State, for following Paterno's lead. 

How to punish? That's for others to decide. I'm more concerned with how to keep it from happening again. But the insidious thing about predators is that they use our good and trusting nature to prey on us and our children.


----------



## kenie (Jul 14, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> I do not believe that the innocent should be punished along with the guilty.
> Firing the entire staff of the Penn State football program is certainly appropriate.  Perhaps, the entire football program at Penn State should be shut down.  However, the current players should not lose their scholarships.  If the Penn State football program is shut down, the current players should be allowed to continue their education at Penn State with their scholarships intact.  Very few college football players make it to the pros, even at a school like Penn State.



If it wasn't for the football scholarship, many of these "student athletes" wouldn't be anywhere near Penn State, or any other University.
To eliminate the football program and allow the player to remain at Penn State would be pointless as there would be no reason to ignore their academic short-comings.
The only reason "most" of these "students" are there is to make money for the school by playing football...


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 14, 2012)

If a school's athletic program receives the death penalty, the student athletes are permitted to transfer to other schools without jeopardy to their NCAA eligibility. Students who are good enough to transfer and receive scholarships elsewhere, would.


----------



## Mel (Jul 14, 2012)

kenie said:


> If it wasn't for the football scholarship, many of these "student athletes" wouldn't be anywhere near Penn State, or any other University.
> To eliminate the football program and allow the player to remain at Penn State would be pointless as there would be no reason to ignore their academic short-comings.
> The only reason "most" of these "students" are there is to make money for the school by playing football...





Beefnot said:


> If a school's athletic program receives the death penalty, the student athletes are permitted to transfer to other schools without jeopardy to their NCAA eligibility. Students who are good enough to transfer and receive scholarships elsewhere, would.


The best of the players would likely transfer, but if the program is dropped before this next season, will the other schools have scholarships available - or will their scholarship money already be committed to their current players?  Penn State may have as many as 85 players on scholarship - is there space on the other schools' rosters, with aid, to absorb them this quickly?  I suspect the best of the best would be picked up by another school, but some might be stuck.  The right thing for Penn to do for them would be to offer a "merit" scholarship to them, but to insist on requirements to keep those scholarships, similar to requirements for regular merit scholarships (in many schools, a full-ride merit scholarship requires the student to maintain a 3.5 GPA.  With that kind of requirement, those former football players would either have one free semester to work on transferring somewhere for affordable, or learn to be scholars.  Seems like a fair compromise to me.  Remember also that their only options for fall semester of 2012 would be community college or someplace with rolling admission that is still accepting applications.


----------



## Elan (Jul 14, 2012)

Interesting poll regarding Paterno's legacy:

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=142842


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 14, 2012)

Elan said:


> Interesting poll regarding Paterno's legacy:
> 
> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/fp/flashPollResultsState?sportIndex=ncf&pollId=142842



I saw an interesting poll taken by the local paper - pennlive.com .  Over 60% of them voted to take the statue down.  That probably is a good indicator that the statue will be coming down!

http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2012/07/joe_paternos_statue_at_penn_st.html


----------



## ricoba (Jul 14, 2012)

So it looks like Paterno was trying to sweeten his retirement deal the same month he testified before the grand jury.  This is the AP Story. 

Kind of puts a sour taste in my mouth, making me think all he ever did was look out for himself.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 14, 2012)

The best of the best should just hire good agents. As their current (Penn State) franchise is (in the future is) defunk, they should just scream "FREE AGENT" and collect the NFL money. Afterall, they could get hurt playing for in the college (minor) league system. 

And why move to a school where they have to go to class and have a dorm room with a roommate or two? And no special dining hall and menu.:ignore:


----------



## Patri (Jul 15, 2012)

vacationhopeful said:


> The best of the best should just hire good agents. As their current (Penn State) franchise is (in the future is) defunk, they should just scream "FREE AGENT" and collect the NFL money. Afterall, they could get hurt playing for in the college (minor) league system.
> 
> And why move to a school where they have to go to class and have a dorm room with a roommate or two? And no special dining hall and menu.:ignore:



Aren't we getting a little carried away now, slamming the athletes? Many fine young men and woman play sports in college, graduate, get good jobs and contribute to society. What is wrong with those high school boys who dreamed of playing football for Penn State? (Or any Division I) To make a blanket statement about them is just plain mean. 
They are no different than any student who chose PSU for any reason. Even those who are simply academic and make straight 'A's in high school don't always make the Dean's List in college as they adjust to the new life. It's a learning curve for everyone at any college. Some do well (most) and some don't. And at whatever stage they leave in four years, they have grown and do assimilate in a community doing something! I haven't heard that the football players all turn to crime or welfare or anything else horrible. They get jobs, marry, etc.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 15, 2012)

Patri said:


> Aren't we getting a little carried away now,....



Having gone to 3 different colleges to get my undergraduate degree, I may be a little jaded in my answer. There is beaucoup stress and lost credits along with the requirements for your major being "just not the same". Plus, Penn State had the special dorms and dining halls for these guys. And most likely a new roommate and new teammates would await all those who transferred.

IF I was a semester or two short of my degree, I would do the parttime/ spring term route at Penn State vs transferring.

If I was a junior and knew my chances of fame and fortune in the NFL was unlikely, I would just stay and finish my Penn State program.

If I was an inbound Freshman or rising Sophmore, transferring this summer might make sense. Plus, my value ($) to the NFL would still be increasing.

PS When I transferred the first time, the department advisor had me in ALL freshman level courses in my major. I carried rising senior status in credit hours - but in my major, the course work was _NOT the same_ as their program (so they would have your believe). And I have 2 totally different roommates in my dorm inside the first month - one who move to an ethic dorm and the other (and her girlfriend/lover) who hated me.


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 15, 2012)

The legacy of the coach and his football program has been totally destroyed.  The icing on the cake will be or the final nail hammer into Paterno coffin will be when Sandusky is convicted in a court of law,


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 15, 2012)

pedro47 said:


> The legacy of the coach and his football program has been totally destroyed.  The icing on the cake will be or the final nail hammer into Paterno coffin will be when Sandusky is convicted in a court of law,



Where have you been? Jerry is in prison and will be for the rest of his life. All that remains (imo) is the outcomes in civil court of victims compensation and just punishment for the football program at Penn State. The damage has been done. Now to rebuild in such a way that is can't happen again.

What we say here in TUG matters little. It's in the hands of the courts.

Jim


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 15, 2012)

Sandusky has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 15, 2012)

Passepartout said:


> ...  What we say here in TUG matters little. ...
> 
> Jim



Of course that's true.  But I think that "public opinion" will matter eventually to those who can and should take decisive actions now that the scope of the travesty has been mostly revealed.  I think that there's a rising tide of complete and utter disgust with the arrogance displayed by those in power at Penn State who allowed this travesty to happen, and I think that the university isn't going to be able to recover a great deal of what it lost unless and until they begin listening to the voices who are clamoring for justice for the victims.  So while our little discussion on TUG really means nothing in the grand scheme, others like it are taking place all over the country through various communication means and the vast majority of participants now realize the seriousness of this travesty.  Every discussion counts, every voice matters.

Silence implies consent.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 15, 2012)

Passepartout said:


> What we say here in TUG matters little. It's in the hands of the courts.
> 
> Jim



I don't think anyone here feels their post on TUG is going to make a big difference in the grand scheme of things.  It's just a place to vent and have a conversation.


----------



## ricoba (Jul 15, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Silence implies consent.



I think I understand your sentiment, but silence on any issue does not necessarily mean the party is consenting.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 15, 2012)

kenie said:


> If it wasn't for the football scholarship, many of these "student athletes" wouldn't be anywhere near Penn State, or any other University.
> To eliminate the football program and allow the player to remain at Penn State would be pointless as there would be no reason to ignore their academic short-comings.
> The only reason "most" of these "students" are there is to make money for the school by playing football...



I know several physicians who went to college on athletic scholarships.  They are some of the smartest people I ever met.


----------



## Tia (Jul 15, 2012)

Sad the whole deal. 

It's my 2cents that way too much emphasis is put on athletics vs academics in college everywhere anyway. Athletics falls in the entertainment category for me, entertainment is another over paid field... just saying.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 15, 2012)

Tia said:


> Sad the whole deal.
> 
> It's my 2cents that way too much emphasis is put on athletics vs academics in college everywhere anyway. Athletics falls in the entertainment category for me, entertainment is another over paid field... just saying.



Given the amount of money that entertainment generates, it is debatable what should be considered overpaid.


----------



## SunSand (Jul 15, 2012)

As the father of an NCAA Academic All-American football player, I find some of the comments towards athletes to be insulting and degrading.  Athletics has played an important role in the educational development of many students.  You may find their hard work and dedication "entertainment", but some of us see the value of teamwork and competitiveness as preparation for life.  Yes life in business, and dealing with adversity, and living with diverse cultures.  I deal with people on a daily basis that could have benefited from athletic competition.  What happened at Penn State is awful, and it will cause monumental change in academic institutions across America.  Don't punish the athletes, in an attempt to get even with Penn State.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 15, 2012)

SunSand said:


> As the father of an NCAA *Academic* All-American football player....



Why is there a separate All-American list of college football standouts for Academics? I understand YOUR PRIDE in your son and his achievements - which is fine. You should be proud. 


But is your son's list the same and in the same position as the NFL 1st and 2nd round draft list from the college ranks? Even close? My post has to do with the BIG BUSINESS of an income stream for universities such as Penn State.


----------



## Patri (Jul 15, 2012)

vacationhopeful said:


> My post has to do with the BIG BUSINESS of an income stream for universities such as Penn State.



That income stream may help keep tuition in check. I don't know, but if it does, that's a good thing. If the university uses the money for the benefit of the students, that's a good thing.


----------



## Tia (Jul 15, 2012)

So I decided to Google that idea and found this link --
http://reason.com/archives/2011/10/14/stop-funding-college-sports

I know my dd says her college tuition costs are going up in the fall in part due to planned athletic spending. 



Patri said:


> That income stream may help keep tuition in check. I don't know, but if it does, that's a good thing. If the university uses the money for the benefit of the students, that's a good thing.



http://www.dallasobserver.com/2011-12-15/news/college-football-s-fleecing-of-american-universities/ another interesting look at the costs of it all


----------



## SunSand (Jul 15, 2012)

Not one cent of tax payer money goes to fund the high school and collegiate athletics in my State.  The football program pays for all of Men's and title IX sports that loose money.  The University educational endowment is well over a billion $.  That's right, it funds scholarships to all students. You don't think a top athletic program equals foundation gifts to the overall University?

Top football teams drive students and funders to a University.  Why is Penn State student enrollment down, for the first time in years?  Why are other Universities increasing enrollment?  One example, when Buffalo University added a football program years ago, there was an instant huge jump in overall student enrollment.  Your example of Minnesota is lame, Minnesota is a Hockey State and football has never caught on.

Athletics and education are inseparable in the United States of America.  [deleted]


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 15, 2012)

SunSand said:


> Not one cent of tax payer money goes to fund the high school and collegiate athletics in my State.  ....



Tia's references fully agree with YOUR POINT. Not one penny of taxpayers' money goes to support the sports teams, uniforms and their travels . It is all the inflated FEES that the students pay - activites fees - that supports the various teams. As for the capital costs, the pension costs, health insurance cost of the STAFF and coachs (like all educational staff) DOES get paid with state taxpayers' dollars. Just like the ECONOMICS and ACCOUNTING and ENGINEERING staffs. 

And how many engineering professors get a $4MM early retirement inventive at 85 years old? What else could the money have brought for ALL the students at Penn State? That is more then a few dozen football game tickets.

Penn State enrollment is down because the students and parents have chosen to NOT support that school and its policies - for some strange reason. 

As for separation of colleges and semi-pro sports (your term was "Athletics and Education") and the US of A --- Ivy League conference and Patriot League conference are both in the USA (and they are ones I know of personally without a google search). Their enrollment/applications are UP.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 15, 2012)

vacationhopeful said:


> Penn State enrollment is down because the students and parents have chosen to NOT support that school and its policies - for some strange reason.


 
Not sure why a few of you have said that enrollment (and also donations) are down.  In fact, they recently reported that both are up.  However, that was before the latest report.  It will be interesting to watch the Fall enrollment, but a lot of that has been determined by now also.


----------



## Mel (Jul 16, 2012)

SunSand said:


> Not one cent of tax payer money goes to fund the high school and collegiate athletics in my State.  The football program pays for all of Men's and title IX sports that loose money.  The University educational endowment is well over a billion $.  That's right, it funds scholarships to all students. You don't think a top athletic program equals foundation gifts to the overall University?
> 
> Top football teams drive students and funders to a University.  Why is Penn State student enrollment down, for the first time in years?  Why are other Universities increasing enrollment?  One example, when Buffalo University added a football program years ago, there was an instant huge jump in overall student enrollment.  Your example of Minnesota is lame, Minnesota is a Hockey State and football has never caught on.
> 
> Athletics and education are inseparable in the United States of America.  [deleted]


 Congratulations to your son, it sounds like he is making the most of his opportunity.  Unfortunately, not all student athletes are.

You claim that not one cent of taxpayer money goes toward athletics in your entire state - how can you be sure of that, at both collegiate and high school level?  Do the athletic programs at all levels use their own facilities, outside of those used for school purposes?  Or do the high school football programs pay fair market rent to the schools/towns for use of the football fields and the locker rooms?  I suppose it is possible taxpayer money really doesn't pay for anything, but I doubt it.  

Athletics and education are inseparable in some American educational institutions, but that doesn't mean they are not inseparable in the US.  How many colleges and universities are there?  How many have Division I teams, let alone Division I football?

Penn States enrollment may or may not be down (we don't know yet), but it might not just be about football.  It might be about perceived safety and accountability.  Some families might abandon the school if the football program is disbanded, others might be more inclined to abandon the school if it is not. 

The health of our educational system would be better if we move professional athletic preparation out of the equation.  The primary purpose of a college or University is to educate, predominantly as part of a degree program.  Perhaps the professional sports leagues should take the route of Baseball, and have a farm system.  Pay those athletes for their work, and if they so choose, they can attend college on their own dime.  Those who have no inclination to obtain a degree can save their money and choose not to.  The universities that still want those athletes as their students can find a way to accomodate their schedules - through online classes or other non-traditional schedules, but make those same options available to the non-athletes.

Educational institutions should well know for the education they deliver, not for their football (or any other) team.

Incidentally, here is the latest news: Paterno family to launch its own probe of Penn State scandal


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 16, 2012)

I have deleted a rude remark, and a response to a rude remark.  This is a very sensitive topic - we all have strong feelings about it, but personal attacks are not permitted on TUG.  

Please stick to the topic and remember that other people have the right to post their opinions, as long as it doesn't violate the TUG posting rules - whether you agree with them or not.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

I enjoy reading, and sometimes participating in these debates, though I have an obliquely related question.  Why are passionate debates such as this permitted, but others, such as the recent one about global warming got closed quickfast?  How do we delineate "contentious social issues"?  I don't have a dog in this fight, and it doesn't really bother me either way, but just wondering about the distinctions.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

IMO there are still far too many people across the country who believe that the NCAA does not have the authority to sanction Penn State for the cover-up involving only Sandusky's acts.  The argument, as near as I can decipher it although it doesn't sound rational to me, is that the players on the field were not directly related to/impacted by the whole mess so this is not a football issue and therefore doesn't come under the NCAA umbrella.  What?!  If Sandusky had been removed when he should have been, the team would never have earned its reputation as "Linebacker U" and would never have achieved the on-field success that it did!

It's also mind-boggling to me that there are still so many people who think that if it does come under the NCAA umbrella, Penn State's players and program should be spared the same fate that has befallen every other current player and program when NCAA sanctions have been imposed due to previous players'/coaches' infractions.  Really, I don't understand the argument that the NCAA cannot punish Penn State's football program because the current players/coaches/students/community are too invested in the program.  What makes Penn State's program so dang special that it can't be subjected to the usual NCAA penalty process that other programs have been made to serve?!

The woman who stood up to Joe Paterno (CNN)  This article sheds a different light on the "culture of reverence" (as it was noted in the Freeh report) that existed at Penn State for years and that seems to have encompassed much more than the Sandusky travesty.  If it's correct, there were untold numbers of infractions committed by members of the football program, including team members, which were not punished or reported as they should have been according to either the Clery Act or NCAA rules because the culture on that campus was to kowtow to Joe Paterno's iron fist.  And it appears that Joe laid down the law in every instance that no punishment that would keep a player off the field could be imposed.  

There's absolutely no doubt that the criminal acts committed by Sandusky were the most despicable of any that were covered up or swept under the rug by Paterno, Spanier, Curley, Schultz - and however many others may have been in the inner circle but haven't been named yet.  But if what's alleged in this article is investigated further, then perhaps the arguments currently being spouted in order to stave off the worst of punishments for Penn State Football will be silenced.  That's my hope.


----------



## geekette (Jul 16, 2012)

my gut feel is that global warming got political years ago.  Not everyone believes it to be scientific fact and discussions can degenerate into name-calling quickly.

Contentious would mean people on different sides of the issue.  In the Sandusky case, pretty much everyone is against child molestation so it is not contentious.


----------



## DeniseM (Jul 16, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I enjoy reading, and sometimes participating in these debates, though I have an obliquely related question.  Why are passionate debates such as this permitted, but others, such as the recent one about global warming got closed quickfast?  How do we delineate "contentious social issues"?  I don't have a dog in this fight, and it doesn't really bother me either way, but just wondering about the distinctions.



I didn't close that thread, but I can give you a general response:  The decision to close a thread is made by the individual moderator or Admin. who deals with the thread - based on the TUG posting rules, and their best judgement.  Part of that judgement is knowledge of what topics have been problems in the past, and Global Warming is one of those topics, that really sets people off.


----------



## Mel (Jul 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> IMO there are still far too many people across the country who believe that the NCAA does not have the authority to sanction Penn State for the cover-up involving only Sandusky's acts.  The argument, as near as I can decipher it although it doesn't sound rational to me, is that the players on the field were not directly related to/impacted by the whole mess so this is not a football issue and therefore doesn't come under the NCAA umbrella.  What?!  If Sandusky had been removed when he should have been, the team would never have earned its reputation as "Linebacker U" and would never have achieved the on-field success that it did!.


Unfortunately, the NCAA probably does not have standing.  In every other case where they have sanctioned a team, it was for a violation of NCAA rules.  They don't have to like what happened at Penn State, but it may or may not have violated NCAA rules.  It is possible that Sandusky's use of athletic facilities with these youngsters might qualify as a recruitment violation, which would give NCAA standing to sanction.

It's kind of like Al Capone, who served 7 years for tax evasion - they got him for what they could.  


> It's also mind-boggling to me that there are still so many people who think that if it does come under the NCAA umbrella, Penn State's players and program should be spared the same fate that has befallen every other current player and program when NCAA sanctions have been imposed due to previous players'/coaches' infractions.  Really, I don't understand the argument that the NCAA cannot punish Penn State's football program because the current players/coaches/students/community are too invested in the program.  What makes Penn State's program so dang special that it can't be subjected to the usual NCAA penalty process that other programs have been made to serve?!


My hope is that the trustees act before the NCAA, and impose their own penalty on the football program.  It serve both the school and the victims better.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what happens to the individual football players, and it is unfortunate that they may be hurt by this (even if they did benefit).  Unless they saw something, they had no reason to believe something of this nature was happening.  The trustees can work with the NCAA to ensure that the current players and prospects (incoming freshmen) get a fair deal.  This way the punishment can be harsh without setting a precedent for the NCAA or calling into question their standing in all of this.

Some could argue that the league and the NCAA themselves are partly to blame too, do we sanction them too?


----------



## Patri (Jul 16, 2012)

Mel said:


> Educational institutions should well know for the education they deliver, not for their football (or any other) team.
> 
> [/URL]



How about band programs? Some students attend a particular college for the quality of its marching bands. Since that one Florida school screwed up, should bands be eliminated from college life, and students only go for academics?

I know of several kids for whom participating in a college band was very important. Are music scholarships a waste if they don't end up playing for the Philharmonic? Or even end up in a music-related career?

On that note, should sororities and fraternities be banned? Clubs in general? Let's just stick to classes and no well-rounded life for our young people. Should society be the same?  Go to work, go home, go to bed, don't participate in anything at all. You should be known for your job only.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

Patri said:


> How about band programs? Some students attend a particular college for the quality of its marching bands. Since that one Florida school screwed up, should bands be eliminated from college life, and students only go for academics?
> 
> I know of several kids for whom participating in a college band was very important. Are music scholarships a waste if they don't end up playing for the Philharmonic? Or even end up in a music-related career?
> 
> On that note, should sororities and fraternities be banned? Clubs in general? Let's just stick to classes and no well-rounded life for our young people. Should society be the same?  Go to work, go home, go to bed, don't participate in anything at all. You should be known for your job only.




Touche, mademoiselle. Touche.


----------



## Mel (Jul 16, 2012)

Patri said:


> How about band programs? Some students attend a particular college for the quality of its marching bands. Since that one Florida school screwed up, should bands be eliminated from college life, and students only go for academics?
> 
> I know of several kids for whom participating in a college band was very important. Are music scholarships a waste if they don't end up playing for the Philharmonic? Or even end up in a music-related career?
> 
> On that note, should sororities and fraternities be banned? Clubs in general? Let's just stick to classes and no well-rounded life for our young people. Should society be the same?  Go to work, go home, go to bed, don't participate in anything at all. You should be known for your job only.


Not what I suggested.  There's no need to ban _any_ program unless they cause a problem at the school.  However, emphasis on non-academic programs should be reduced.  (And yes, I agree the issue with hazing within the band is a significant problem).  

I don't see a problem with students choosing a school based on its football team or its band, but few students who intend to be professional musicians pick their school based on the Band, but instead look at the entire music department/program.  Give scholarships to balance your extracurricular programs, no problem.  But we need to get away from thinking an educational institution is defined by its football team or its marching band.  Extracurricular activities produce well-rounded students, but a school's reputation should be based on its ability to educate its students (and in many cases, yes those EC's are part of that education).


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

Patri said:


> How about band programs? Some students attend a particular college for the quality of its marching bands. Since that one Florida school screwed up, should bands be eliminated from college life, and students only go for academics?
> 
> I know of several kids for whom participating in a college band was very important. Are music scholarships a waste if they don't end up playing for the Philharmonic? Or even end up in a music-related career?
> 
> On that note, should sororities and fraternities be banned? Clubs in general? Let's just stick to classes and no well-rounded life for our young people. Should society be the same?  Go to work, go home, go to bed, don't participate in anything at all. You should be known for your job only.



Interesting that you bring bands into the discussion, Florida A&M University in particular.  Today FAMU's president announced that his resignation will be effective immediately, which is about as correct a move as could be made now considering the vote of "no confidence" he'd received from trustees in June.  IMO he should have resigned immediately when the hazing death story broke, but at least he had the good sense while he was still presiding to suspend the band program indefinitely.

I agree with you that the extracurriculars round out a student's education and that it's extreme to start talking about completely abolishing them all over the country.  But when a certain program is exposed as one that has adopted a "win at any cost" culture and the exorbitant price being paid is shielded and hidden by those in power, which is what happened at FAMU and Penn State, that's when the certain program should be shut down.  It should happen immediately, and it should be implemented by those at the schools with the power to do it (which is what Mel has suggested and what FAMU did.)  Shut the program down and don't start it back up again until all the folks responsible for the culture are gone.  That's the only way to prove that the school administration is serious about complying with any and all rules imposed by all organizations, in-house and other, that are charged with safeguarding the integrity of the schools.  When the schools don't take that action, that's when the books should be thrown at them from every corner.  Repeatedly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

Mel said:


> ... My hope is that the trustees act before the NCAA, and impose their own penalty on the football program.  It serve both the school and the victims better.  Ultimately it doesn't matter what happens to the individual football players, and it is unfortunate that they may be hurt by this (even if they did benefit).  Unless they saw something, they had no reason to believe something of this nature was happening.  The trustees can work with the NCAA to ensure that the current players and prospects (incoming freshmen) get a fair deal.  This way the punishment can be harsh without setting a precedent for the NCAA or calling into question their standing in all of this. ...



I agree with you, but I think it's long past time for us to give the trustees the benefit of the doubt here.  If they announce tomorrow that Penn State's football program is suspended indefinitely and every administration position, including their own, will be replaced within the year, it will be welcome news.

But anyone with any insight into pedophilia could have expected the Freeh report results almost immediately when the Grand Jury report was released.  All of the signs were there of patterns consistent with both long-term multiple-victim molestations as well as the poisonous "win at any cost" culture in Penn State's football program.  I was ticked off that Penn State football played out the season last year and I have been ticked off at most every report that has come out since then.  And I'm no expert, but there are plenty of them who have been saying exactly the same things for months.

So if Penn State makes that announcement tomorrow I'll be happy, but I won't give them any credit at all for doing the right thing.  It would have been the _correct_ thing if they'd done it back in November.  It would have been the _right_ thing only if they'd turned the pedophile in years ago (and with three more victims coming forward saying they were molested in the '70s and '80s we really have no idea when this all began.)  Now it would just be another CYA move to protect themselves.  They should have been motivated by the victims' distress for all these years, but nothing they've done or could do will make up for their complete and utter disregard of the victims.  Nothing.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 16, 2012)

*The fate of the students*

The fate of the students impacted by closing the football program is NOTHING compared to what happened to the  children molested as a result of Paterno and Penn States inaction and lies. Most, if not all of them, will be unable to lead normal lives.  Any action against the football program is justified as a lesson to Penn State and other schools that children must be protected from sexual predators.  Penn State protected the sexual predator at the expense of the children.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

And for the love of pete, will SOMEBODY with a lick of sense please reign in the artist who is painting and re-painting and re-painting that foolish mural?!?!  Put a tarp over the thing until all this is settled and stop making a bad situation worse!

Are you freaking KIDDING me?  The halo was removed from Paterno's head but a blue ribbon has been painted on his chest?!  What a COMPLETELY IRRATIONAL move that was - does the painter realize that Joe Paterno's actions were about as far REMOVED from Child Abuse Prevention as it's possible to be?!

Also, I saw something that said Penn State has had to hire security for Paterno's statue, to prevent protesters from injuring it.  WHAT?!  They're THAT concerned with protecting the sacred JoePa's STATUE but they couldn't protect CHILDREN?!

GAH, it's infuriating what continues to happen there.  NONE of it makes sense to me.  How can anyone think any of this is acceptable?!


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

Mel said:


> I don't see a problem with students choosing a school based on its football team or its band, but few students who intend to be professional musicians pick their school based on the Band, but instead look at the entire music department/program.  Give scholarships to balance your extracurricular programs, no problem.  But we need to get away from thinking an educational institution is defined by its football team or its marching band.  Extracurricular activities produce well-rounded students, but a school's reputation should be based on its ability to educate its students (and in many cases, yes those EC's are part of that education).



I'm not sure what points you are trying to make.  The comment about students who want to be professional musicians was kind of outta left field.  I don't get that one.  

An integral component of higher education is extracurricular programs, be they athletics or music or whatever.  Basketball players, football players, swimmers, softball players, rowers, dancers, musicians, etc., may select their school primarily based on the strength of the relative extracurricular program first, and quality of education second.  In fact, to a great degree that is often the sell.  And it is those extracurricular programs that help bring money to any school--through television rights, ticket sales, boosters, engaged alumni contributions, etc. 



SueDonJ said:


> But when a certain program is exposed as one that has adopted a "win at any cost" culture and the exorbitant price being paid is shielded and hidden by those in power, which is what happened at FAMU and Penn State, that's when the certain program should be shut down.  It should happen immediately, and it should be implemented by those at the schools with the power to do it (which is what Mel has suggested and what FAMU did.)  Shut the program down and don't start it back up again until all the folks responsible for the culture are gone.



Shutting a program down should be a punishment, not a rehabilitative tool.  If the desire is to completely dismantle a culture, that can be done simply by firing every last one of the staff and replacing them wholesale.  The 'crimes' by Penn State were so severe that I find it just punishment to kill their football program for several years, be it self-inflicted or NCAA-inflicted.



SueDonJ said:


> Also, I saw something that said Penn State has had to hire security for Paterno's statue, to prevent protesters from injuring it.  WHAT?!  They're THAT concerned with protecting the sacred JoePa's STATUE but they couldn't protect CHILDREN?!



That is standard practice, and despite what I think of Paterno, I would do the same thing.  I would not in any way allow for defacement of university property, and would hire security to prevent any predicted vandalism.


----------



## Mel (Jul 16, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> I'm not sure what points you are trying to make.  The comment about students who want to be professional musicians was kind of outta left field.  I don't get that one.


It was in response to Sue, who seemed to think I was advocating shutting down all football programs because of one school.  I do think there is too much emphasis on some programs, when they are not officially the primary purpose of the university, but are treated as if the university exists for the purpose of supporting them.  The difference between Football at Penn, and the Band at Florida is that a percentage of football players fully intend to end up with a career in football.  Kill the program, they have no reason to stay at the school.  When the band was disbanded, it didn't leave students in the lurch - those who chose Florida to become professional musicians can still do so at Florida, because their career plans don't revolve around that band, even if a band scholarship did enable them to attend that particular school.

Incidentally, I agree with you - shutting the program down would punish the students, NONE of whom were involved in this mess, unless Sandusky's behavior is found to have been common knowledge (I don't think it was among the students).  Further, doing so to change the culture could backfire precisely because it is punitive.  Clean house, and hire an entirely new staff that takes the situation seriously.  The trustees must do it, because otherwise everything thing rests on the NCAA, in terms of having any authority.  If the Trustees let the NCAA set the tone, it undermines their authority over the program.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> ... Also, I saw something that said Penn State has had to hire security for Paterno's statue, to prevent protesters from injuring it.  WHAT?!  They're THAT concerned with protecting the sacred JoePa's STATUE but they couldn't protect CHILDREN?! ...





Beefnot said:


> ... That is standard practice, and despite what I think of Paterno, I would do the same thing.  I would not in any way allow for defacement of university property, and would hire security to prevent any predicted vandalism.



What makes it inexcusable is the continued appearance that they are more concerned with Joe Paterno, his legacy and the football program than they ever were with the victims.

Immediately after the Grand Jury report I thought the statue could remain as a symbol of Joe-as-the-Football-Coach, and that eventually it might be possible to separate his coaching legacy from the scandal at least enough to justify the statue's placement.

Since then, and especially since the Freeh report has confirmed what was expected, I believe the statue and all references on campus to Joe Paterno should be removed.  But I'm pretty sure that's a pipe dream because the trustees and some in the community don't seem to have any idea of what's right and wrong.

But as the decision to hire security to protect the statue was being made, at that moment in that meeting, did NO ONE realize the cruel insult that could be perceived in that move?  Did no one realize that it effectively symbolizes the very culture which resulted in children being sacrificed for the program?  HOW after all this time can they not be utilizing the services of a Child Protection expert so as to gauge the correctness of their actions now?  The arrogance is still there; that's what the security detail for the statue tells me.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

Mel said:


> It was in response to Sue, who seemed to think I was advocating shutting down all football programs because of one school. ...



I think you mean Patri, because I don't think that you want to shut down college football all over the country.  You and I agree on many things here.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> But as the decision to hire security to protect the statue was being made, at that moment in that meeting, did NO ONE realize the cruel insult that could be perceived in that move?  Did no one realize that it effectively symbolizes the very culture which resulted in children being sacrificed for the program?  HOW after all this time can they not be utilizing the services of a Child Protection expert so as to gauge the correctness of their actions now?  The arrogance is still there; that's what the security detail for the statue tells me.



Perhaps they should accompany the security detail with some public messaging, like this in no way is a statement about the university's position on Joe Paterno or his legacy, but is simply a temporary move to protect university property from vandals.  Either way, just think about the alternative.  If and until some decision is made about what to do with the statue, it is not practical to allow it to be open season for vandalism.  Sure it doesn't look good _politically_, if that really should mean anything.  This is when we need to be levelheaded, set aside political manipulation and opportunistic sound bytes, and just recognize pragmatic reality.  They have to protect the statue at this time.

As far as arrogance, they _fired_ Joe Paterno last year.  The effectively _fired_ God.  They commissioned the Freeh investigation.  That says something.  Give them some credit.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Perhaps they should accompany the security detail with some public messaging, like this in no way is a statement about the university's position on Joe Paterno or his legacy, but is simply a temporary move to protect university property from vandals.  Either way, just think about the alternative.  If and until some decision is made about what to do with the statue, it is not practical to allow it to be open season for vandalism.  Sure it doesn't look good _politically_, if that really should mean anything.  This is when we need to be levelheaded, set aside political manipulation and opportunistic sound bytes, and just recognize pragmatic reality.  They have to protect the statue at this time.
> 
> As far as arrogance, they _fired_ Joe Paterno last year.  The effectively _fired_ God.  They commissioned the Freeh investigation.  That says something.  Give them some credit.



They don't have to protect it if they remove it, which can be done on a temporary basis at least until they've figured out how to navigate this minefield such that there is no lingering perception of the victims being less important than the program.

I give them credit for passing CYA 101 with flying colors.  They don't deserve any further credit.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

Firing Joe Paterno, rather than forcing him to resign, was a very courageous act that they likely knew might cause rioting in the streets, which is precisely what happened.  And the Freeh investigation far surpasses CYA.  They could easily have said that this is a regrettable situation and that their hearts go out to the victims, and they will fully support all law enforcement investigations into the matter.  But no, they went further, they commissioned their own independent investigation and published the results publickly.

If you want to call that a CYA class, which is a stretch by any definition, then it was definitely 503 graduate level.  There were so many alternatives available to Penn State that could have been much less vigorous than the course they have pursued, but they did not.


----------



## SunSand (Jul 16, 2012)

The first move should be for the Big Ten Conference to apply its own sanctions.  If those sanctions do not go far enough, then the NCAA should step in.  In any case, every athlete should have the ability to change schools without penalty.  There are enough victims and tragic circumstances.  Let's not penalize the completely innocent.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Firing Joe Paterno, rather than forcing him to resign, was a very courageous act that they likely knew might cause rioting in the streets, which is precisely what happened.  And the Freeh investigation far surpasses CYA.  They could easily have said that this is a regrettable situation and that their hearts go out to the victims, and they will fully support all law enforcement investigations into the matter.  But no, they went further, they commissioned their own independent investigation and published the results publickly.
> 
> If you want to call that a CYA class, which is a stretch by any definition, then it was definitely 503 graduate level.  *There were so many alternatives available to Penn State that could have been much less vigorous than the course they have pursued, but they did not.*



They didn't take those actions until their backs were up against the wall, after  NCAA officials sent them a letter demanding answers to four detailed questions related to items in the NCAA's purview - the university's culture and "institutional control," both before and since the various reports have been released.  They'd been told by the NCAA that any decision would be withheld until the legal process had developed and that their answers would be taken into consideration when the decision was made.  They and everyone else knew that their answers had better be good, and that only substantial future actions could save them from the disastrous ones of the past.  That's textbook CYA, and for you to say that what they did in response to the NCAA directive is more graduate-level than freshman undergrad actually makes them seem MORE desperate, not less.

It occurs to me, if just one word in your last sentence is changed, you prove their culpability far beyond anything I've written:  "There were so many alternatives available to Penn State that could have been much *more* vigorous than the course they have pursued, but they did not."


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> What makes it inexcusable is the continued appearance that they are more concerned with Joe Paterno, his legacy and the football program than they ever were with the victims.
> 
> Immediately after the Grand Jury report I thought the statue could remain as a symbol of Joe-as-the-Football-Coach, and that eventually it might be possible to separate his coaching legacy from the scandal at least enough to justify the statue's placement.
> 
> ...


how sadly ironic that they would hire security to Protect the statue of a man that wouldn't CALL security to protect the life of a child .


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 16, 2012)

SunSand said:


> The first move should be for the Big Ten Conference to apply its own sanctions.  If those sanctions do not go far enough, then the NCAA should step in.  In any case, every athlete should have the ability to change schools without penalty.  There are enough victims and tragic circumstances.  Let's not penalize the completely innocent.



I agree as far as the players.  Somebody else has already said it in this thread - they should be given every opportunity to continue any scholarships or playing time at whichever schools would like to invite them, all on Penn State's dime.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> They didn't take those actions until their backs were up against the wall, after  NCAA officials sent them a letter demanding answers to four detailed questions related to items in the NCAA's purview - the university's culture and "institutional control," both before and since the various reports have been released.  They'd been told by the NCAA that any decision would be withheld until the legal process had developed and that their answers would be taken into consideration when the decision was made.  They and everyone else knew that their answers had better be good, and that only substantial future actions could save them from the disastrous ones of the past.  That's textbook CYA, and for you to say that what they did in response to the NCAA directive is more graduate-level than freshman undergrad actually makes them seem MORE desperate, not less.
> 
> It occurs to me, if just one word in your last sentence is changed, you prove their culpability far beyond anything I've written:  "There were so many alternatives available to Penn State that could have been much *more* vigorous than the course they have pursued, but they did not."



If you were on the Board of Trustees, who have a fiduciary duty to the university, and are faced with this scandal, what actions would you have recommended?

And how does changing a word prove anything?


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 16, 2012)

laurac260 said:


> how sadly ironic that they would hire security to Protect the statue of a man that wouldn't CALL security to protect the life of a child .



See, that's the political sound byte stuff I am talking about.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 17, 2012)

*People who protect child molesters should not have statues in their honor*

I think this is a simple proposition.  People who protect child molesters should not have statues in their honor.  In a society that time and time again proclaims itself to despise child molesters it is a hypocritical at the least to make an exception for child molester protectors who won alot of football games.

I wonder how Joe Paterno would have felt if someone protected the molester of  HIS GRANDCHILDREN.   Do you think he would want a statue erected in their honor because they won many basketball games?


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> See, that's the political sound byte stuff I am talking about.



political sound byte stuff?  Huh?  There's nothing political in my post. This has nothing to do with politics.  He did not protect the children, therefore his precious statue does not deserve to be protected.  Let the students drag it thru the streets like they did to Hussein's statue.  Or better yet, let the VICTIMS drag it thru the streets.  Poetic justice if you ask me.


----------



## Patri (Jul 17, 2012)

http://onwardstate.com/community/contrary-to-what-you-have-heard-the-freeh-report-has-big-problems/

Everyone should just calm down and let this thing work itself out. It will. The whole truth may be slow in coming, but true justice will be served once it does.

It is easy and safe to judge from an armchair.

As I said before, I can't honestly believe any of the four thought Sandusky was still actively abusing children. In today's society, it makes no sense. So I really want to know who did what when, and if therefore the 4 thought Sandusky had changed his ways (which no pedophile does). Or if they at least naively thought there were enough controls in place. Unlike TV, crimes and mysteries are not solved in an hour. Eventually this one will be, and THEN we can watch the two-hour film.

The three must be interviewed, as well as the Second Mile people.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> If you were on the Board of Trustees, who have a fiduciary duty to the university, and are faced with this scandal, what actions would you have recommended? ...



The trustees' duties are more than fiduciary.  I would have wanted them to take immediate action following the release of the Grand Jury report last November, I mean THAT DAY and not a few days later in response to the NCAA's letter, to suspend the football program.  "Our thoughts and our actions must be focused on the victims of this terrible injustice.  We have determined that there could be greater risk in doing further harm to the victims by continuing with business as usual, than there would be with at least temporarily suspending the football program until such time as we have determined the magnitude of this tragedy."  Who in their right mind would have a legitimate reason to fault them for that action, if they'd proposed it as a matter of integrity and not money?

Since the Freeh report's been released I want them to do whatever it takes to enact what I wrote earlier in the thread:  "I believe the Penn State football program needs to be shut down for at least five years - long enough to purge the culture that exists there and has been festering uncontested for too many years, long enough to field an entirely new team and coaching staff with no connection to the old.

"I don't believe that the university should be shut down completely, but certainly all those who hold non-teaching administration and board positions need to be replaced. Then the university should be placed in some type of receivership and a new oversight committee, made up of people unrelated to the community, can keep tabs on the new administration and board to ensure that the old culture is not allowed to re-establish itself. I'd say a period of at least four academic years after football is re-introduced to the school should be sufficient."


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> The trustees' duties are more than fiduciary.  I would have wanted them to take immediate action following the release of the Grand Jury report last November


 
Last November?  Because of the Grand Jury report?  Is that the lynch mob behind you?

- I'm in favor of the statue coming down (based on what we know now) and the same for any other prominent attention directed towards Paterno.

- I'm not in favor of any other action towards the football team.  Trust me, they'll suffer enough because of this episode.

Let it play out.  Justice is already being served in this matter.  So far, nobody has gotten off the hook, and it looks like the school will pay dearly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Patri said:


> http://onwardstate.com/community/contrary-to-what-you-have-heard-the-freeh-report-has-big-problems/
> 
> Everyone should just calm down and let this thing work itself out. It will. The whole truth may be slow in coming, but true justice will be served once it does.
> 
> ...



You're right.  I have no patience to wait for however long it takes for the trustees and administration to finally come to the realization that what is alleged to have happened, really did happen.  That, yes, this is as bad as it could possibly be, and there is no salvaging the integrity that was an illusion in that football program for all those years.  I waited out the discovery process for the Boston pedophile priest scandal and watched the archdiocese do further harm to those victims and our churches.  It's painful to see similar damaging actions (and inaction) being taken at Penn State.

Patri, I truly mean this in as respectful a manner as possible.  It does not appear that you have an understanding of how and why pedophiles insinuate themselves into positions where they are afforded "protection" that allows them to molest multiple victims over a long period.  As unbelievable as it sounds to you, as much as you do not want to believe that men in positions of power enabled Jerry Sandusky, there is simply no way that he could have acted on his monstrous insticts, been the monster he was, without the implied consent of the men who protected him.  No way.  That's why this is as despicable a situation as it is.

I read your link.  I don't agree with it.  It reads as though the writer desperately wants to find a reason to doubt the expert investigators' reasonable conclusions.  I think it's highly doubtful that his suppositions will come true.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Last November?  Because of the Grand Jury report?  Is that the lynch mob behind you? ...



IMO it's good for a mob to be formed!  We went over this in one of the other Penn State threads - if a mob had formed years ago when Sandusky's molestations first came to light, there wouldn't be any need for a mob to form now!

Want to know what I think has been the most correct action throughout this entire situation?  On the day the Freeh report was released, Joe Paterno's name was removed from the Child Development Center at Nike headquarters.  The CEO and President of Nike immediately determined that Joe Paterno's name no longer stood for decency or integrity or child protection, despite the fact that Nike founder Phil Knight was the person who was entrusted with delivering a eulogy for Joe Paterno.

Now that's integrity.  That's doing the right thing.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> if a mob had formed years ago when Sandusky's molestations first came to light, there wouldn't be any need for a mob to form now!


 
You're missing the point.  There is no need for a mob now.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> You're missing the point.  There is no need for a mob now.



We'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree.


 
Trust me, we agree on a lot about this.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 17, 2012)

Wow SueDonJ. I abhor child rape just like the next normal person, and I actually do personally want to see paterno's legacy forever destroyed, and I do actually want to see the football program shut down as punishment (not shut down to change the culture, which could be changed without shutting down the program honestly). We probably agree on these things.  But you are on a whole different plane, in another dimension, when it comes to what constitutes timely action. You do have lynch mob mentality. We still do not know what will happen, and Penn St. may or may not do what we believe to be the right thing, but what you proposed is not even in the realm of what any rational, deliberate governing body would have done.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 17, 2012)

laurac260 said:


> political sound byte stuff?  Huh?  There's nothing political in my post. This has nothing to do with politics.  He did not protect the children, therefore his precious statue does not deserve to be protected.  Let the students drag it thru the streets like they did to Hussein's statue.  Or better yet, let the VICTIMS drag it thru the streets.  Poetic justice if you ask me.



Yes, sounds good, protecting the statue vs protecting a child, simple and pithy, plays well to make a cheap jab. But in actuality is much too simplistic. Trying to, as a body of individuals--with strong lobbying forces (points and counterpoints) on both sides of the issue--what to do, when, the implications, how exactly to manage the implications, etc., is an inordinately challenging, complex, and deliberate process.  There are probably group conversations, side conversations, negotiations, debates, arguments, fights, you name it, going on up the totem pole, trying to grasp how exactly to handle what to do about the Penn St. pope, effectively.

Boy I wish we could use the Catholic Church scandal as a reference point to this discussion, but alas.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Wow SueDonJ. I abhor child rape just like the next normal person, and I actually do personally want to see paterno's legacy forever destroyed, and I do actually want to see the football program shut down as punishment (not shut down to change the culture, which could be changed without shutting down the program honestly). We probably agree on these things.  But you are on a whole different plane, in another dimension, when it comes to what constitutes timely action. You do have lynch mob mentality. We still do not know what will happen, and Penn St. may or may not do what we believe to be the right thing, but what you proposed is not even in the realm of what any rational, deliberate governing body would have done.



We're in agreement, what I think should have happened and should happen in the near future is extreme.  It comes from the only similar situation which can be compared, IMO, and from the knowledge that NOT taking extreme actions in a timely manner in that situation resulted in further harm to the victims and the institution.  I don't have any other point of reference.

I think I understand the nuances you're talking about, the difference you see between a punitive action and a rehabilitative one, as far as shutting down the football program.  But in my mind, eradicating the culture that allowed this situation to happen at Penn State, IS a punishment for that university and some in that community.  Over the years they've EMBRACED that culture, came to believe that they were ENTITLED to that culture.  Penn State Football DEFINED the culture.  So IMO, we're in agreement about the reason to shut down the football program.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> ... Boy I wish we could use the Catholic Church scandal as a reference point to this discussion, but alas.



I honestly don't know why we can't.  It's been asked in this thread that we not mention the pedophile priest scandal because we'll risk the thread being shut down.  But IMO, it's possible to make comparisons between the two similar situations without the thread devolving into a bitter discussion of religion in general.  Actually, IMO it's imperative that we make the comparison - there aren't any others which equal the magnitude of these two.

The overwhelming sentiment following the pedophile priest scandal was, "have we learned anything?"  Well, the way the Penn State scandal develops will answer that question.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Yes, sounds good, protecting the statue vs protecting a child, simple and pithy, plays well to make a cheap jab. But in actuality is much too simplistic. Trying to, as a body of individuals--with strong lobbying forces (points and counterpoints) on both sides of the issue--what to do, when, the implications, how exactly to manage the implications, etc., is an inordinately challenging, complex, and deliberate process.  There are probably group conversations, side conversations, negotiations, debates, arguments, fights, you name it, going on up the totem pole, trying to grasp how exactly to handle what to do about the Penn St. pope, effectively.
> 
> Boy I wish we could use the Catholic Church scandal as a reference point to this discussion, but alas.



Its not complicated at all.  The board of trustees hired free to do a report.  The report is out. The report condemns Paterno and the football program from being interested in protecting Sandusky and SHOWING NO  CONCERN FOR HIS VICTIMS.  THEY DIDNT EVEN ASK FOR THE VICTIMS NAME.  

Now is the time to act.  Delay is another indication that they care more about Paterno and the football program than the victims.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I honestly don't know why we can't.  It's been asked in this thread that we not mention the pedophile priest scandal because we'll risk the thread being shut down.  But IMO, it's possible to make comparisons between the two similar situations without the thread devolving into a bitter discussion of religion in general.  Actually, IMO it's imperative that we make the comparison - there aren't any others which equal the magnitude of these two.
> 
> The overwhelming sentiment following the pedophile priest scandal was, "have we learned anything?"  Well, the way the Penn State scandal develops will answer that question.



Hm. One piece of trivia. After the pedophile scandal was unfolding 10 years ago, and his culpability in numerous coverups was coming to light, was Cardinal Bernard Law, archbishop of Boston, fired or reassigned? And if reassigned, where was he reassigned? 

What Penn St has done to date already exceeds our only other similar point of reference.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> ... What Penn St has done to date already exceeds our only other similar point of reference.



Yes it does in some ways.  But it's still not enough.  As long as the perception remains that Penn State is more concerned with protecting itself than aiding in the healing process of the victims, it's not enough.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 17, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Now is the time to act.  Delay is another indication that they care more about Paterno and the football program than the victims.


 
C'mon now... the board at Penn St. still has to give a formal response to Freeh's report.  Can we at least wait for that response before calling for immediate action?  They are supposed to respond soon.


----------



## Elan (Jul 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> C'mon now... the board at Penn St. still has to give a formal response to Freeh's report.  Can we at least wait for that response before calling for immediate action?  They are supposed to respond soon.



  I agree.  Do we know how often the board is meeting?  Do we know what options are being discussed?  I would have to presume that everything discussed here is or has been on the table at some point.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 17, 2012)

Elan said:


> I agree.  Do we know how often the board is meeting?  Do we know what options are being discussed?  I would have to presume that everything discussed here is or has been on the table at some point.



Penn State requested the report and paid for the report.  Freeh is highly respected.  The report is exhaustive. The report is clear. If they criticize the report they are bigger idiots than I already think they are.  There is not much to discuss.

I think John Wayne said " We better get moving.  Time is a wasten".


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> C'mon now... the board at Penn St. still has to give a formal response to Freeh's report.  Can we at least wait for that response before calling for immediate action?  They are supposed to respond soon.



Penn State decides to keep Joe Paterno’s statue while the rest of the world collectively shakes its head  (Yahoo Sports)

IMO it would appear more favorably on the trustees if they had immediately removed the statue, the same day that Nike took Joe Paterno's name off their facade, and issued a statement to the effect that their utmost concern is with the victims.  They could have said the removal would be temporary at least until such time that they've had an opportunity to debate it.  They could even play it the way they did the removal of McQueary from the sidelines while they finished out the season last year - in deference to its "safety" because threats had been lodged.

But regardless, according to that link as of Sunday they've not had a vote regarding the statue, there is some strong support for keeping the statue, and in the most surprising statement of all, they believe that it's still possible to separate Joe Paterno's legacy on the field from off.   


> "Contrary to various reports, neither the Board of Trustees nor University Administration has taken a vote or made a decision regarding the Joe Paterno statue at Beaver Stadium."
> 
> Some trustees went even further, insisting Paterno's statue outside Beaver Stadium in State College, Pa., never should be removed.
> "It has to stay up," said another trustee. "We have to let a number of months pass, and we'll address it again. But there is no way, no way. It's just not coming down."
> ...


----------



## Elan (Jul 17, 2012)

NCAA president Emmert's stance (please read):

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Penn State decides to keep Joe Paterno’s statue while the rest of the world collectively shakes its head  (Yahoo Sports)


 
The title of that article is very misleading.  I think it's only fair to include their own update... which almost appears to be a retraction of the entire article.  

_Despite the report, Penn State officials say no decision has been made on the fate of Paterno's statue._

_"Contrary to various reports, neither the Board of Trustees nor University Administration has taken a vote or made a decision regarding the Joe Paterno statue at Beaver Stadium."_

As I said earlier, let's wait until the response to Freeh's report comes out.  It won't be long.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Elan said:


> NCAA president Emmert's stance (please read):
> 
> http://espn.go.com/college-football...ark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state



Thanks for that link, Jim.  I'm encouraged that the NCAA does not appear to be in awe of the Paterno Legacy.


----------



## Tia (Jul 17, 2012)

A systemic problem is right. 



Elan said:


> NCAA president Emmert's stance (please read):
> 
> http://espn.go.com/college-football...ark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> The title of that article is very misleading.  I think it's only fair to include their own update... which almost appears to be a retraction of the entire article.
> 
> _Despite the report, Penn State officials say no decision has been made on the fate of Paterno's statue._
> 
> ...



I'm confused.  My post included the statement you copied about a vote not being taken yet.   

My point is that if they had time to formulate statements and be quoted about why they haven't removed the statue, then they had time to make a decision to remove it on at least a temporary basis.  And certain statements in that article leave me dumbfounded, that removal of the statue is not an option for at least a few trustees.


----------



## geekette (Jul 17, 2012)

I'm certain that had there been a Sandusky statue that it would have disappeared quickly.

I don't think the statue is the most pressing item for the trustees nor do I think it should be.  I'm not onboard with it 'sending a message' since it's basically a hunk of rock that represents a football coach.  I don't agree that its continued presence shows the U cares more about football than the victims.

Are there victims frequenting the statue?  I doubt it, and I doubt they think about it at all.


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 17, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Yes, sounds good, protecting the statue vs protecting a child, simple and pithy, plays well to make a cheap jab. But in actuality is much too simplistic. Trying to, as a body of individuals--with strong lobbying forces (points and counterpoints) on both sides of the issue--what to do, when, the implications, how exactly to manage the implications, etc., is an inordinately challenging, complex, and deliberate process.  There are probably group conversations, side conversations, negotiations, debates, arguments, fights, you name it, going on up the totem pole, trying to grasp how exactly to handle what to do about the Penn St. pope, effectively.
> 
> Boy I wish we could use the Catholic Church scandal as a reference point to this discussion, but alas.


Beefnot, don't look now, but I think the slogan on the bottom of all your posts is bass ackwards.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

geekette said:


> ... Are there victims frequenting the statue?  I doubt it, and I doubt they think about it at all.



I'm pretty sure the victims are watching every move the trustees make.  And their attorneys are recording it all and watching it repeatedly.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 17, 2012)

laurac260 said:


> Beefnot, don't look now, but I think the slogan on the bottom of all your posts is bass ackwards.



You are very correct.  I will be changing it shortly.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 17, 2012)

Elan said:


> NCAA president Emmert's stance (please read):
> 
> http://espn.go.com/college-football...ark-emmert-signals-heavy-sanctions-penn-state



I read the article a few more times and watched the video of Mark Emmert delivering sections of his statement, and actually I'm more encouraged than my first reaction.  Here's what I think the statement might effectively say to Penn State:

_~ The NCAA is in agreement with the "reasonable conclusions" reached in the Freeh report, and has no doubt that while Penn State's situation extended beyond the football program, it is without question a football program-related situation and as such comes under the jurisdiction of the NCAA.  Consider this your fair warning.  If you do not self-impose a punishment commensurate with the infractions, we will do it for you, and our punishment will exceed any in our association's history. ~_

Of course that's what I WANT Emmert's statement to mean, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that it might.


----------



## geekette (Jul 17, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm pretty sure the victims are watching every move the trustees make.  And their attorneys are recording it all and watching it repeatedly.



I doubt it.  People move on and try to heal, forget, maybe even try to forgive.  Whatever the trustees do or don't do is not going to change much of anything for a vic, so I can't imagine they are following these details nor have much concern as to what happens with the statue.   It's quite separate from what happened to the boys, I just can't draw the emotional link from a victim to the statue.  Why would they immerse themselves in it?

If someone polls the victims as to what should happen to the statue, that'd be great, go that way, do what they want.  But I think the answer would be "who cares?" as it's so trivial in all this.


----------



## Elan (Jul 17, 2012)

geekette said:


> I doubt it.  People move on and try to heal, forget, maybe even try to forgive.  Whatever the trustees do or don't do is not going to change much of anything for a vic, so I can't imagine they are following these details nor have much concern as to what happens with the statue.   It's quite separate from what happened to the boys, I just can't draw the emotional link from a victim to the statue.  Why would they immerse themselves in it?
> 
> If someone polls the victims as to what should happen to the statue, that'd be great, go that way, do what they want.  But I think the answer would be "who cares?" as it's so trivial in all this.



  I read a post on another CFB message board that suggested leaving the statue, but adding a plaque detailing Paterno's career, including this last horrid chapter.  Let everyone reflect on both the good and the bad.  I thought it was a decent idea.


----------



## Elan (Jul 17, 2012)

From ESPN.com:

 "Penn State said it will respond within days to the NCAA's demand for information as the governing body decides whether the university should face penalties -- including a possible shutdown of its storied football program -- in the wake of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal.

Penn State president Rodney Erickson said Tuesday he doesn't want to "jump to conclusions" about possible sanctions after the head of the NCAA declared the so-called death penalty has not been ruled out."


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 22, 2012)

*paterno statue coming down*

University  is preparing to take statu down today.  They say the statue causes pain to victims of child molestation at Penn and elsewhere.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 22, 2012)

The statue came up quite a bit in the previous Paterno thread.  It was the right thing to do and they made the right choice.

Now, the million dollar question is should the football team be punished?  I feel that with the upcoming lawsuit liability that Penn State will have suffered enough.  I know others would like to see the football team destroyed also.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 22, 2012)

The local TV news has the construction crew there NOW removing the statue. About 25 guys in white hard hats with a large construction forklift-type mover behind the 6 foot blue tarped fence. It will most likely be gone to storage within the hour. Seen on NBC station.

9AM - Update - Statue is now GONE.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 22, 2012)

It is gone. Put into storage. Penn State President Said " It has become a source of division and an obstacle to healing,"

Jim


----------



## Talent312 (Jul 22, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Now, the million dollar question is should the football team be punished?



I say no. IMHO, it'd be wrong to punish the current crop of players + coaches for something that happened years ago. That said, it's clear that the school had lost institutional control long ago, and a penalty is fothcoming. Perhaps it can be limited to a scholarship reduction.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 22, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> The statue came up quite a bit in the previous Paterno thread.  It was the right thing to do and they made the right choice.
> 
> Now, the million dollar question is should the football team be punished?  I feel that with the upcoming lawsuit liability that Penn State will have suffered enough.  I know others would like to see the football team destroyed also.



Maybe  its just semantics but I think not.  Many people, including me, want to see the football PROGRAM punished by the NCAA by being kicked out for two years.  The program has already destroyed the team. The team simply cannot play in the environment the program created through its malfeasance.   The press reaction andcitizen reaction to continued playby the team would be horrific.  When the program is purged and punished a new team can arise from the ashes without the horrible burden of a prior program.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 22, 2012)

While I agree that punishing the current players and coaches for something they had no part in seems unfair, it wouldn't be the first time the NCAA has done it.  The USC Trojans were prevented from participating in the NCAA post-season for two years because Reggie Bush may or may not have taken money from an agent in his senior year at the university.  I think a similar penalty could send the appropriate message to Penn State without jeopardizing the scholarships of players who may not be able to attend college otherwise.

Edited to add:

Actually, I think this article on ESPN.com about sums it up for me:

http://espn.go.com/college-football...ll-penn-state-nittany-lions-earned-wrath-ncaa

When you look at what the NCAA has done to other teams for infractions involving players accepting improper gifts and compensation, how can they as an organization ignore what was arguably an institutional cover-up that harmed so many children?  Ohio State players getting free tattoos is like throwing gum on the sidewalk compared to what the Penn State leadership did.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 22, 2012)

I'm glad the statue is gone and I hope that the NCAA announces tomorrow that the football program is also gone.  The statue, permanently.  The program, for as long as it takes to eradicate the culture that allowed ANYONE in the program, school or community to believe that the successes on the field were more important than besmirching the "good name" of the program.  IMO, Penn State Football can no longer make ANY claims to a good name.

It is sad that NCAA sanctions are more likely to punish those involved currently with a program who may not have any connection to those who committed the infractions in the past, as well as those on the periphery whose livelihood may be affected.  No doubt this will happen at Penn State the same way it's happened at other schools.  As sad as it is, it's the typical process of NCAA sanctions and Penn State should not be shielded from it.  But IMO in this case it will also meet the objective of eradicating the culture, because there are still far too many people who are choosing to believe that Joe Paterno and the rest of Jerry Sandusky's enablers were not the problem.  Maybe it'll be good for them to have their Saturdays free for doing some thinking about what really went on in their community for all those years.


----------



## pedro47 (Jul 22, 2012)

The statue is down; I pray the President of the University and the NCAA do not punish the football program with the death penalty.

This is a very day for the University.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 22, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I'm glad the statue is gone and I hope that the NCAA announces tomorrow that the football program is also gone. The statue, permanently. The program, for as long as it takes to eradicate the culture that allowed ANYONE in the program, school or community to believe that the successes on the field were more important than besmirching the "good name" of the program. IMO, Penn State Football can no longer make ANY claims to a good name.
> 
> It is sad that NCAA sanctions are more likely to punish those involved currently with a program who may not have any connection to those who committed the infractions in the past, as well as those on the periphery whose livelihood may be affected. No doubt this will happen at Penn State the same way it's happened at other schools. As sad as it is, it's the typical process of NCAA sanctions and Penn State should not be shielded from it. But IMO in this case it will also meet the objective of eradicating the culture, because there are still far too many people who are choosing to believe that Joe Paterno and the rest of Jerry Sandusky's enablers were not the problem. Maybe it'll be good for them to have their Saturdays free for doing some thinking about what really went on in their community for all those years.


 
Sue, you've been critical of the _current_ Penn State leadership every step of the way, however in my mind they've handled this situation extremely well.  If the football program was dismantled for a couple of years, then is this thing over in your mind, or should the board and/or president do more than that?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 22, 2012)

Here's what's coming next...

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-400_162...ented-penalties-against-penn-state/?tag=stack

_CBS News has learned that the NCAA will announce what a high-ranking association source called "unprecedented" penalties against both the Penn State University football team and the school.  "I've never seen anything like it," the source told correspondent Armen Keteyian._


.


----------



## am1 (Jul 22, 2012)

Apparently no death penalty.

I think penn state should play their home games in an empty stadium for 2012.  Ban on bowls for a few years and reduction in scholarships.  

It is good that the statue is down.  I wonder if they chose Sunday morning to do it in a hope to avoid riots.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 22, 2012)

Newscaster said there is a post on the NCAA site that a penalty for the football team will be forthcoming on Monday 9AM. 

The multiple internet posts hinted that it would be a severe lost of scholarships and multiple bowl appearances. Will NOT be the "death penalty", even for not 1 year. One analyst stated that the "Death Penalty" might have been preferred by the team and university as the decided (TBA) penalty is more long lasting and severe.


----------



## Kal (Jul 22, 2012)

Talent312 said:


> I say no. IMHO, it'd be wrong to punish the current crop of players + coaches for something that happened years ago. That said, it's clear that the school had lost institutional control long ago, and a penalty is fothcoming. Perhaps it can be limited to a scholarship reduction.


 
It is a common understanding that a football team is a family where every member is bonded to one another.  Is it even possible that any one player knew what was going on with an ACTIVE assistant coach?  Furthermore, is it even possible that the player did not share the information with his closest "family" buddy?  The word had to be out!  Accordingly, at least one or more members of the team (and perhaps the majority of the team) would be complicit in the crime if that person(s) is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so.

To me, it's just a question of the NCAA death penalty, or very, very severe sanctions.  This is far beyond the "lack of institutional control".  The institution was deeply involved in the entire crime.

Also, PS recruits blue chip athletes like any other top football factory.  Those players will have their choice of other universities where they can provide their services with a full FREE ride.  It will be a recruiting frenzy for a hundred universities.  The only thing harmed will be status quo and a gazillion $$$ of football wanna-be and alumni contributions.  That's the real punishment.


----------



## dougp26364 (Jul 22, 2012)

In order to deter other universitites from doing the same, the punishment will have to be severe. Otherwise, there will be no reason for anyone else to come forward should they find the same thing happening with their employee's within their system. To not punish Penn State severaly sends the message that it might be better to cover it up then to face the bad PR from exposing the situation. The decision by Penn State was to cover it up. The NCAA needs to make it clear that was the wrong decision.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 22, 2012)

Doug, I disagree with you, but that was very well-stated and is an excellent argument regarding this matter.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 22, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Sue, you've been critical of the _current_ Penn State leadership every step of the way, however in my mind they've handled this situation extremely well.  If the football program was dismantled for a couple of years, then is this thing over in your mind, or should the board and/or president do more than that?



IMO what's been most important is for the Football Program to suffer a drastic punishment.  I'd like to see a complete shutdown of the program for AT LEAST two years but would prefer five, which would be long enough for any and every person connected to the program today to be replaced so that there would not be one connection between the old and new teams.  Even I'm not irrational enough to believe that a five-year ban will happen, though, if one happens at all.

(Unless there are current players who absolutely no doubt had knowledge of Jerry Sandusky's and his Band Of Merry Men's actions - which I don't believe there are although they may have heard rumors - then if there is a shutdown of the program every player should be allowed to move on from Penn State and become members of other programs.  Whatever it costs them or their new schools should be compensated by Penn State.)

As far as the board, I think the current interim president is doing a good job all things considered and from all accounts, he's not caught up in the culture that allowed this situation to develop and fester.  I think the other board members are at this point shell-shocked and letting him make the decisons for fear that if they draw attention to themselves, they'll be gone next.  I'm okay with him staying on but unfortunately I don't think that will happen.  Whether it's his choice or the board's, I think he'll be forced out after most of the clean-up is done because some members of the community will always associate him with acts they didn't want to see happen (such as removing the statue.)

I'd like to see the rest of the board members do what the one did earlier this week, to step down from their positions.  But all at once would cause too much disruption to the entire university, so if they agree amongst themselves to stagger their replacements I'd be happy with that.  Again, that might be an irrational hope.

If what's being alleged since the Freeh report comes true and the federal authorities determine that there have been, in fact, violations of the Clery Act that began with the Football Program but extend throughout the entire university, all bets are off.  The entire university should pay for that with drastic action, beginning with a cleansing of the board and the appointment of an oversight committee with complete control.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 22, 2012)

am1 said:


> ... I think penn state should play their home games in an empty stadium for 2012. ...



I love this idea.  If a shutdown doesn't happen this is the next best thing.  I'd extend it beyond one year, though.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 22, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I love this idea.  If a shutdown doesn't happen this is the next best thing.  I'd extend it beyond one year, though.



With NO (TV) REVENUE MONIES --- just a video available 48 hours after the end of the game. So, diehards can see how the game was played. AND all the games, be HOME GAMES - no road trip parties or televised road games back to house parties in Happy Valley.

And if I was a local living there, I would want to change the town's name.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 22, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> (Unless there are current players who absolutely no doubt had knowledge of Jerry Sandusky's and his Band Of Merry Men's actions - which I don't believe there are although they may have heard rumors - then if there is a shutdown of the program every player should be allowed to move on from Penn State and become members of other programs.  Whatever it costs them or their new schools should be compensated by Penn State.)



Sue - this is exactly what my husband thinks should happen.  He attended USC courtesy of a football scholarship, and while he's grateful for the opportunities it afforded him (he wouldn't have been able to afford tuition there without it), he also feels that at lot of the big "football schools", academics take a back seat to athletics, which bothers him.  

He was telling me last night that per NCAA rules, if a player who currently has a football scholarship to a given university decides that they want to change schools, they are prohibited from playing at another school for one year.  So even if there are kids at Penn State who'd like to switch schools, they'd likely lose their scholarships (because what other school is going to pay for a kid who can't play for a year?)  He thinks that the NCAA should waive this rule for Penn State players, and allow the players to transfer schools, if they desire, and still be allowed to play.  He also thinks that Penn State should honor their scholarships and pay their tuition and expenses at any new school, although I doubt that would happen.


----------



## vacationhopeful (Jul 22, 2012)

CapriciousC said:


> ...He was telling me last night that per NCAA rules, if a player who currently has a football scholarship to a given university decides that they want to change schools, they are prohibited from playing at another school for one year.....



I believe that rule has been waived before for other players when their original college program has been had rulings against them by the NCAA.


----------



## Mel (Jul 22, 2012)

Kal said:


> It is a common understanding that a football team is a family where every member is bonded to one another.  Is it even possible that any one player knew what was going on with an ACTIVE assistant coach?  Furthermore, is it even possible that the player did not share the information with his closest "family" buddy?  The word had to be out!  Accordingly, at least one or more members of the team (and perhaps the majority of the team) would be complicit in the crime if that person(s) is aware of its occurrence and has the ability to report the crime, but fails to do so.
> To me, it's just a question of the NCAA death penalty, or very, very severe sanctions.  This is far beyond the "lack of institutional control".  The institution was deeply involved in the entire crime.
> Also, PS recruits blue chip athletes like any other top football factory.  Those players will have their choice of other universities where they can provide their services with a full FREE ride.  It will be a recruiting frenzy for a hundred universities.  The only thing harmed will be status quo and a gazillion $$$ of football wanna-be and alumni contributions.  That's the real punishment.


This is where some action can be taken by the state.  Faculty and staff at colleges and universities are generally not considered mandatory reporters, because their jobs don't place them in a positon of dealing with children as a matter of course.  But perhaps the state should update the law to include them.  Making them mandatory reporters might not have changed anything, but it would have made the risk to themselves a bit more severe.  After the evidence from the Freeh report, it's clear they would have been guilty of more than bad decisions and lying to the grand jury.

From what I have read on other forums, some football players as far back as the 70's considered Sandusky creepy, and avoided being in the locker room alone.  It sounds more like gut instincts and rumors than direct knowledge of anything he did.  Many may have chosen not to put themselves in a position where they might witness something.  I agree if any did see something, they should have done more than warn others to avoid the locker room (and should have wanted those boys as well).  But could we expect more of them than of a graduate assistant who was scared to come forward?  And for all we know, such a witness may have existed, who did report to one of the men now under indictment, and may have found that nothing was done.  In that case, I  too would warn my teammates to stay clear of the locker room.



CapriciousC said:


> He was telling me last night that per NCAA rules, if a player who currently has a football scholarship to a given university decides that they want to change schools, they are prohibited from playing at another school for one year.  So even if there are kids at Penn State who'd like to switch schools, they'd likely lose their scholarships (because what other school is going to pay for a kid who can't play for a year?)  He thinks that the NCAA should waive this rule for Penn State players, and allow the players to transfer schools, if they desire, and still be allowed to play.  He also thinks that Penn State should honor their scholarships and pay their tuition and expenses at any new school, although I doubt that would happen.


Whena program is shut down, through no fault of the student, they usually get a waiver, and and can play at a new school the following year.  I doubt the NCAA would have issue with grantung such waivers if the program is shut down.The question is whether waivers would be granted if the NCAA stops short of the death penalty.


----------



## Passepartout (Jul 22, 2012)

*"Crippling" sanctions on Penn State*

Noted recently, Penn State will get multiple year bowl and scholarship sanctions. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...owl-ban-crippling-scholarship-losses/related/ it could amount to a 'Death Sentence.'

Jim


----------



## ronparise (Jul 22, 2012)

Passepartout said:


> Noted recently, Penn State will get multiple year bowl and scholarship sanctions. http://collegefootballtalk.nbcsport...owl-ban-crippling-scholarship-losses/related/ it could amount to a 'Death Sentence.'
> 
> Jim



Remember these are just sanctions on the sports business part of Penn State. The various academic departments are still in business and I believe a BS or a BA from Penn State will carry the same weight as before.


----------



## Sea Six (Jul 22, 2012)

Penn State hasn't exactly been a key player in the bowl games recently.  I just hope Sandusky's punishment is greater than Paterno's.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 22, 2012)

How can the NCAA justify not giving the Death Penalty to Penn State after giving it to SMU.  If they don't, I have to assume they believe booster abuse is more serious than multiple rapes.  And don't give me that stuff that the Death Penalty will impact the innocent schools in the Big Ten.  How about the innocent schools in the Southwest Conference?  Did the NCAA worry about them?

George


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 22, 2012)

College sports in their entirety need to be reformed. We hear about progress, and then stuff like Penn State happens. I have absolutely no confidence or trust in the system.


----------



## Tia (Jul 22, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> How can the NCAA justify not giving the Death Penalty to Penn State after giving it to SMU.  If they don't, I have to assume they believe booster abuse is more serious than multiple rapes.  And don't give me that stuff that the Death Penalty will impact the innocent schools in the Big Ten.  How about the innocent schools in the Southwest Conference?  Did the NCAA worry about them?
> 
> George



So googled what this was about and found this http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...w-for-decades/2012/07/17/gJQA1t5pqW_blog.html


----------



## Kona Lovers (Jul 22, 2012)

ThreeLittleBirds said:


> Sadly, I don't think this is going to have the impact that it should.
> 
> I grew up in PA, and I know all too well how dedicated folks are to their beloveds there -- be it the church, football, school -- doesn't matter.
> 
> Much like the archdiocese of Philadelphia's coverup of long term molestation, the Penn State cover up will be pushed under the rug, and excuses will be made as to why football should continue, and why Joe Paterno should remain as a demigod in the eyes of the world....



This is certainly true even beyond State College.  We're in CA, and we have on our staff a Penn State grad who claims she and her family knew "Joe Pa" personally and ever since this came about, she has vehemently defended Joe, going to far as hosting a page on Facebook defending him.  Watching her actions, the only description I can give it is "rabid" as far as her devotion to Joe, his legacy, and Penn State.

Marty


----------



## Elan (Jul 23, 2012)

Well, the penalties handed down seem like a hand slap to me.  4 year bowl ban, $60M fine, and vacating of wins back to 1998.  The only penalty with teeth is the scholarship reduction (20 per year for 4 years).


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

I find the vacating of wins for 13 seasons, the $60 million which must be directed toward abuse services, and the scholarship reduction all to be quite severe. The vacating of wins takes Paterno from the most winningnest coach in history to the 12th winningest. That is anorthal mortal blow to Paterno's legacy. The scholarship reduction means that Penn St will be a walking dead team for many years to come.

While I find the vacating of wins to be particularly punitive and poetic, I wonder whether this will prompt Penn St. to seek legal challenge to the NCAA's jurisdiction over the sanctions.  The other punishments Penn St was probably prepared for and ready to accept (maybe even an outright death penalty), but for the NCAA to wipe out every victory since 1998 was quite vicious.  Or, Penn St. may opt to just let this thing now get behind them due to the terrible PR that might be expected if they fight it.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

This one has to sting the school badly.  Just by taking the wins away from Paterno now means that the legacy that some members of the school tried so hard to protect is now gone.  

Justice has been served.


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 23, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> How can the NCAA justify not giving the Death Penalty to Penn State after giving it to SMU.  If they don't, I have to assume they believe booster abuse is more serious than multiple rapes.



the NCAA has said it regrets using the death penalty at all.

the police and courts handle rapes...that's simply not the NCAA's jurisdiction.  the courts are there to punish individuals.

but when PSU (as an institution) covered up the crimes to protect the football program, that part is what is punishable by the NCAA.

the penalties handed down should pretty much destroy PSU football for the next decade or so.  hard to tell till you start counting the transfers and recruiting losses when kids realize they won't see a bowl during their career if they go to PSU (or stay there if they redshirted last year).


----------



## am1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Hopefully the BIG 10 will come through with more.  I cannot see their network wanting to carry their games as they will be second and third tier games as it is.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> hard to tell till you start counting the transfers and recruiting losses when kids realize they won't see a bowl during their career if they go to PSU (or stay there if they redshirted last year).


 
It won't be hard to tell when you measure the drop in attendance money and the drop in donations.  Who knows, perhaps they'll use this as a rallying cry and get more donations.  But, it's got to hurt.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

dougp26364 said:


> In order to deter other universitites from doing the same, the punishment will have to be severe. Otherwise, there will be no reason for anyone else to come forward should they find the same thing happening with their employee's within their system. To not punish Penn State severaly sends the message that it might be better to cover it up then to face the bad PR from exposing the situation. The decision by Penn State was to cover it up. The NCAA needs to make it clear that was the wrong decision.


 
Again, great point here, Doug.  This appears to be what was going through the minds of the NCAA in dealing out the punishment.  I think the punishment was too harsh, but am willing to concede that this logic should prevail.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 23, 2012)

It's done! 

I think the death penalty would've have been more appropriate (especially if it were done internally by the Board of Trustees), but I'm just one persons opinion of many.

I really hope they don't fight it as I think that would be a horrible mistake!  As I outlined in a previous post, I actually think the BOT has responded to this situation in a very admirable way!

It's now time to switch the focus from punishment to helping the victims and making sure this never happens again!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

No secret, I would have preferred that Penn State's football program be shut down for a few years.  BUT the NCAA's sanctions here speak directly to what IMO is the root cause of the problem - the culture surrounding the team and the community, that proved football was far too important for too many years.  That the successes on the field gave certain people too much power and that those people abused that power to a horrific nth degree.  Rightly so, the NCAA has not focused on any individual people but instead on the evil culture that was embraced in the program/school/community.  There will be criminal and civil court actions that will go on for years that will deal with that focus on individuals, which is as it should be.

I think it was TUGger Elan* who said something in one of these discussions about how idiotic it would be for Penn State's current board to disagree with or challenge the Freeh report findings, considering that Penn State commissioned the report and agreed to comply with the process.  Wouldn't similar idiocy be at play here if Penn State tries to challenge the NCAA sanctions?  From all reports Penn State agreed in advance to work with the NCAA to determine proper sanctions and subsequently abide by them.  I don't understand why folks might now expect - or call for - Penn State to put up a fight.

(*Sorry, I got that wrong.  It was TUGger pgnewarkboy who came up with that brilliance.)


----------



## Pat H (Jul 23, 2012)

Frankly, I don't see how vacating all those wins is such a big punishment. So Joe isn't the winningst coach but it really doesn't change who won those games. You can't change history. The thrill from winning the games is gone.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I think it was TUGger Elan who said something in one of these discussions about how idiotic it would be for Penn State's current board to disagree with or challenge the Freeh report findings, considering that Penn State commissioned the report and agreed to comply with the process.  Wouldn't similar idiocy be at play here if Penn State tries to challenge the NCAA sanctions?  From all reports Penn State agreed in advance to work with the NCAA to determine proper sanctions and subsequently abide by them.  I don't understand why folks might now expect - or call for - Penn State to put up a fight.



I agree.  I think they've been working together for awhile.  Look at the timing.  The Freeh report first, then the statue comes down, then NCAA penalties.  I think the board wanted the NCAA to penalize the football team, in order to provide cover to them.  Does anyone think the board would've had the courage to make those choices?  And then the Freeh report gave the NCAA all the ammo they needed.  The timing of everything was very well planned.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> Frankly, I don't see how vacating all those wins is such a big punishment. So Joe isn't the winningst coach but it really doesn't change who won those games. You can't change history. The thrill from winning the games is gone.



That was just one phase of the punishment.  Penn State has been punished, and will be punished more with the legal liability.  And they've been hurt very badly, there is no doubt about that.

Also, the wins mean the most to the legacy of Joe Paterno.  A legacy that some have argued he was trying to protect.  So, justice has been served there.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> No secret, I would have preferred that Penn State's football program be shut down for a few years.  BUT the NCAA's sanctions here speak directly to what IMO is the root cause of the problem - the culture surrounding the team and the community, that proved football was far too important for too many years.  That the successes on the field gave certain people too much power and that those people abused that power to a horrific nth degree.  Rightly so, the NCAA has not focused on any individual people but instead on the evil culture that was embraced in the program/school/community.  There will be criminal and civil court actions that will go on for years that will deal with that focus on individuals, which is as it should be.
> 
> I think it was TUGger Elan who said something in one of these discussions about how idiotic it would be for Penn State's current board to disagree with or challenge the Freeh report findings, considering that Penn State commissioned the report and agreed to comply with the process.  Wouldn't similar idiocy be at play here if Penn State tries to challenge the NCAA sanctions?  From all reports Penn State agreed in advance to work with the NCAA to determine proper sanctions and subsequently abide by them.  I don't understand why folks might now expect - or call for - Penn State to put up a fight.



I do agree that to challenge findings of fact and subsequent conclusions on an investigation that they commissioned would have been idiotic.  However, I would not extend that same sentiment to challenges to punishment meted by a third party.  Penn St. well might not fight the sanctions; they might even wholeheartedly support sanctions for all I know right now.  All though it may be ill-advised to fight the sanctions, idiotic it would not be.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 23, 2012)

I read that Penn State agreed to the sanctions before they were announced.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 23, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> That was just one phase of the punishment.  Penn State has been punished, and will be punished more with the legal liability.  And they've been hurt very badly, there is no doubt about that.
> 
> Also, the wins mean the most to the legacy of Joe Paterno.  A legacy that some have argued he was trying to protect.  So, justice has been served there.



I still don't see that the punishment is that bad. Joe is dead. It may hurt his legacy but he can no longer be hurt.


----------



## SunSand (Jul 23, 2012)

The Big Ten Council of Presidents and Chancellors statement, regarding the NCAA ruling on Penn State:

1. Censure: The accepted findings support the conclusion that our colleagues at Penn State, individuals that we have known and with whom we have worked for many years, have egregiously failed on many levels—morally, ethically and potentially criminally. They have failed their great university, their faculty and staff, their students and alumni, their community and state—and they have failed their fellow member institutions in the Big Ten Conference. For these failures, committed at the highest level of the institution, we hereby condemn this conduct and officially censure Penn State.

2. Probation: The Big Ten Conference will be a party to the Athletic Integrity Agreement referenced in the NCAA release, and will work closely with the NCAA and Penn State to ensure complete compliance with its provisions over the 5 year term of the Agreement.

3. Ineligibility: As referenced in the NCAA release, Penn State’s football team will be ineligible for postseason bowl games. It will also be ineligible for Big Ten Conference Championship Games for four years, a period of time that runs concurrently with the NCAA postseason bowl ban imposed this morning.

4. Fine: Because Penn State will be ineligible for bowl games for the next four years, it will therefore be ineligible to receive its share of Big Ten Conference bowl revenues over those same four years. That money, estimated to be approximately $13 million, will be donated to established charitable organizations in Big Ten communities dedicated to the protection of children.


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> Frankly, I don't see how vacating all those wins is such a big punishment. So Joe isn't the winningst coach but it really doesn't change who won those games. You can't change history. The thrill from winning the games is gone.


I agree that vacating the wins is not a really big punishment.  It was the right thing to do, but I disagree with those who think this is a big deal.

In five years, when someone asks a college football fan "Who was the winningest coach of all time?", what do you think their will answer will be?  

Kurt


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> I still don't see that the punishment is that bad. Joe is dead. It may hurt his legacy but he can no longer be hurt.



For those outside of sports, I suppose I can see how this seems soft.  But for those more engaged with college athletics, these penalties sure do seem pretty doggone harsh to me.  It doesn't have the ominous ring of "the death penalty" that had been whispered about, but it still is pretty vicious in its totality nonetheless.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> I still don't see that the punishment is that bad. Joe is dead. It may hurt his legacy but he can no longer be hurt.



If you read some of the commentary online about the entire situation and in particular the actions taken since last November by the Penn State BOT, the NCAA and now the Big Ten, you'll find that there are STILL far too many misguided people who are embroiled in the culture that protected a pedophile and allowed him to victimize children over a period of years.  It's astounding to me that so many STILL do not appear to understand that protecting the PSU Football Program and Joe Paterno's Legacy effectively validates that poisonous culture.

No doubt it will be impossible to ever convince some people that Joe Paterno was NEVER deserving of the Legacy that some still mistakenly believe he has earned.  But the NCAA did as much as it could do in that respect, by removing from the permanent records Joe Paterno's placement as the Winningest Coach in College Football.  By vacating the wins back to the first date it can be reasonably surmised that Joe Paterno and others participated in the cover-up, the NCAA effectively erased what was Joe Paterno's undeserved permanent, official legacy.  That's about as "bad" as it gets, and much more well-deserved.  IMO.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

PigsDad said:


> I agree that vacating the wins is not a really big punishment.  It was the right thing to do, but I disagree with those who think this is a big deal.
> 
> In five years, when someone asks a college football fan "Who was the winningest coach of all time?", what do you think their will answer will be?
> 
> Kurt



In five years time the answer will be either "Paterno, but..." or Eddie Robinson.  Either way, the asterisk beside Paterno's name will be permanent.


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> In five years time the answer will be either "Paterno, but..." or Eddie Robinson.  Either way, the asterisk beside Paterno's name will be permanent.


Exactly.  And that is why I don't think that piece of the punishment is such the big deal that some others are making it out to be -- that will still be part of Paterno's legacy, even if there is an asterisk by his name.

The other sactions are the teeth of PSU punishment.

Kurt


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

In five years time I'll happily answer that question with, "NOT Joe Paterno."  And if a yahoo argues with me about it, I'll gleefully remind him/her that Joe Paterno was removed in disgrace from that prestigious position.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 23, 2012)

I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?



Honestly, I cannot think of any circumstance.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?



It would be best for Penn State to shut down the football program voluntarily for 5 years.  They could start the process of rebuiding it after 4 years.  The team getting their butts kicked and the student and alumni apathy while they are losing and other revenue penalties acessed by the NCAA will make the football program a money loser.  They should save the money that will be lost and allocate it to other sports or University endeavors.

I think there are a number of schools that voluntarily shut down their football programs at one time or another.  Many have since reinstated them.  Most started the process of bringing them back by competing at levels lower than Division I.

George


----------



## laurac260 (Jul 23, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Also, the wins mean the most to the legacy of Joe Paterno.  A legacy that some have argued he was trying to protect.  So, justice has been served there.



Balderdash.  Every time his legacy is written about, spoken about, etc, there will ALWAYS be that footnote, that asterisk at the end of the stats that will state , "this does not count the wins between 2008 and 2011 where Penn State was stripped of their accounting of those wins due to so and so."  (of course this will be stated much more eloquently than I have written).  The footnote will be there.  Yes, as a reminder that if only, but also to remind people that he really WAS the winningest coach in football.  

In other words IMHO I think it's a sorry joke to say that taking away wins amounts to anything.  If you take away all the ticket sales, all the money GENERATED during those winning seasons, that would be another manner altogether.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

Reasonable, and unreasonable, people can disagree on what the appropriate punishment should be.  We should take consolation that the NCAA did mete out what a large audience did find to be quite severe, and that the Big 10 supported and extended from there.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Reasonable, and unreasonable, people can disagree on what the appropriate punishment should be.  We should take consolation that the NCAA did mete out what a large audience did find to be quite severe, and that the Big 10 supported and extended from there.



Not to be too critical, but I think (though I hope I'm wrong) many of those people you believe thought this punishment to be quite severe are the same people who just want this issue to go away quickly so they can get back to business/football as usual. I have difficulty believing long-term effective change will be the eventual result of this decision. Again, I hope I'm wrong.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?



Maybe, possibly, hopefully? - if an atrocious scandal directly involving the players who take the field is unearthed THEN the Death Penalty will at least be on the table?  I would hope so, because I really don't understand why it wasn't imposed here.  It doesn't make sense to me that Emmert explained away not imposing the Death Penalty by saying that it would affect too many people who were not responsible.  I guess he meant not responsible in the way that Sandusky and his enablers were, that not everyone in the program/school/community was in on the conspiracy despite being embroiled in the culture that allowed it to happen?  I dunno, it doesn't make any sense because past Death Penalties most surely had that effect - why should Penn State be immune?

I'm sick reading so many things from Penn State supporters that really don't make rational sense to me.  That culture is so ingrained in so many people that their statements read like Victim Impact Statements, as though they have no concept of what that culture has borne.  How can ANYone think that Penn State didn't deserve at least the penalties handed down today?!  Why don't any of these yahoos realize that there are victims in this situation who are much more deserving of sympathy and justice?!  IMO, it would not be an injustice for that community to have to find something else to do with their Saturday afternoons.  The program/community doesn't deserve a chance to move on to business as usual, meaning games on the field, until/unless more is done to acknowledge and eradicate the cult following.  All the NCAA's punishments have done is reinforce the community's resolve to come together as self-described victims.  Gah, they're insufferable.


----------



## PStreet1 (Jul 23, 2012)

I'm not a sports fan, so my question may be totally dumb.  I don't understand how, years after the fact, victories can be "vacated."  Isn't that attempting to re-write history?  Penn State did, in fact, win those games; how is it possible to now say they don't count?  (I understand that's what they have now said; I just don't understand the logic.)


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 23, 2012)

PStreet1 said:


> I'm not a sports fan, so my question may be totally dumb.  I don't understand how, years after the fact, victories can be "vacated."  Isn't that attempting to re-write history?  Penn State did, in fact, win those games; how is it possible to now say they don't count?  (I understand that's what they have now said; I just don't understand the logic.)



it's just saying that had jopa and the big dogs exposed sandusky in 1998, there might have been a backlash at the time that made recruiting more difficult and wins tougher to come by.  the administration was colluding to lie about the situation and not "playing fair" so all the wins since that point are tainted, and as a result, they are thrown out.

same deal when USC "paid" reggie bush to play for them.  without the benefit of the cheating, they might not have won the games...so they are thrown out.

it's not a great punishment but it's appropriate as part of the package, even if it mostly hurts the sports nuts...


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

With every statement the Paterno family releases they reinforce the notion that Joe Paterno was the de facto king of that campus.  Their sense of entitlement, their surety that no official position can be determined until/unless a Paterno weighs in and agrees, only serves to prove that somewhere along the way the powers that be at Penn State wrongly granted that entitlement to the king and his successors.  Somebody smart should tell them to stop.  Just stop.


----------



## tfalk (Jul 23, 2012)

As someone who has a kid at Penn State, and as someone who has never followed college football, I just don't see all the anger... A small handful of people were directly responsible for this happening.  The board of trustees also should be blamed for their severe lack of oversight, their precise reason for being involved here.

Who exactly are these penalties going to affect?  The current students and athletes at the university... the people who had NOTHING to do with this.  Who is going to pay the price for this?  The students in the form of higher tuition and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania...  again, people who had nothing to do with the actions of those responsible.  I certainly had nothing to do with this but I am one of the people who are going to be paying for the consequences of something that I had absolutely nothing to do with.

Send the people who had direct responsibility for this to prison.  Fire the trustees and those who should have made sure this never happened didn't.   Beyond that, you can't change what happened and taking money from students and taxpayers who had nothing to do with this just doesn't seem fair/right to me...  

Sorry if that doesn't go along with 'popular' opinion..


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

tfalk said:


> As someone who has a kid at Penn State, and as someone who has never followed college football, I just don't see all the anger... A small handful of people were directly responsible for this happening.  The board of trustees also should be blamed for their severe lack of oversight, their precise reason for being involved here.
> 
> Who exactly are these penalties going to affect?  The current students and athletes at the university... the people who had NOTHING to do with this.  Who is going to pay the price for this?  The students in the form of higher tuition and the taxpayers of Pennsylvania...  again, people who had nothing to do with the actions of those responsible.  I certainly had nothing to do with this but I am one of the people who are going to be paying for the consequences of something that I had absolutely nothing to do with.
> 
> ...



Valid points. 

However, for example, if a school is sued by a student and wins a judgement then the entire school suffers, as well as current students, as well as the taxpayers.  That's how the system works.


----------



## geekette (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> Frankly, I don't see how vacating all those wins is such a big punishment. So Joe isn't the winningst coach but it really doesn't change who won those games. You can't change history. The thrill from winning the games is gone.



Yeah, I don't get that, either.  If there had been unfair advantage in achieving the wins, then, Sure, I understand.  Doesn't seem to me that the recruiting brochures would be pushing football wins now anyway.  And I can only hope that non-football players don't make college decisions based on football w/l records.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Not to be too critical, but I think (though I hope I'm wrong) many of those people you believe thought this punishment to be quite severe are the same people who just want this issue to go away quickly so they can get back to business/football as usual. I have difficulty believing long-term effective change will be the eventual result of this decision. Again, I hope I'm wrong.



First. let's just be clear that there has never been a permanent "death penalty".  That term refers to suspending a program in its entirety for at least a year.  There is no precedent, and possibly no jurisdiction by any body external to the university, for permanently disbanding an athletic program.

Secondly, it seems as if you are looking for a punishment handed down to Penn State to somehow correct larger systemic issues that you find to be corrupt, immoral, and/or unjust.  No singular punishment is going to accomplish that.  Could it have been even more severe?  Sure.  Would some have been critical that whatever that more severe punishment was, it wasn't severe enough?  Most likely.

Your comment about folks wanting to get back to the business of football is very cynical.  Have you considered that, although they may disagree with your own notion of just punishment, many do find it severe because they just think it is severe?  I do not particularly care all that much for college football, so I was not invested in the outcome either way.

What is specifically the long-term effective change to which you refer?


----------



## Kona Lovers (Jul 23, 2012)

I wonder if Bill O'Brien misses the Patriots yet.


----------



## geekette (Jul 23, 2012)

So when does the investigation of Second Mile occur??   I fear that Sandy was not the only one there that ... shared his interests.


----------



## Pat H (Jul 23, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Valid points.
> 
> However, for example, if a school is sued by a student and wins a judgement then the entire school suffers, as well as current students, as well as the taxpayers.  That's how the system works.



Actually it's the insurance company that loses.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 23, 2012)

geekette said:


> So when does the investigation of Second Mile occur??   I fear that Sandy was not the only one there that ... shared his interests.



There had been a rumor in 2011 surfaced by the guy who had originally broken the Sandusky story that this thing might be far, far, bigger than just Sandusky.  The type of stuff that can cause people to disappear.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 23, 2012)

Pat H said:


> Actually it's the insurance company that loses.



Actually, there's a lot of losers out of this ordeal.  The insurance company may pay out some, but the school is going to lose a lot of revenue because of this also.  At the least, in tickets sales and future donations.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 23, 2012)

I really think the financial penalties imposed by the NCAA and Big Ten aren't going to be anywhere near as damaging as the settlements that come out of the eventual civil court proceedings.  It's unfortunate that every corner of the university will be affected financially, but like others have said that's the way the process usually works.  There's no reason for Penn State to be shielded or exempt from that process.


----------



## geekette (Jul 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> There had been a rumor in 2011 surfaced by the guy who had originally broken the Sandusky story that this thing might be far, far, bigger than just Sandusky.  The type of stuff that can cause people to disappear.



Yeah, I saw something about the disappearance a few weeks back.  It was one of those unsolved mysteries shows and the PSU situation was barely touched on.  Kind of, "oh yeah, he was also on the team looking into ..." and that was it.  Hard to say exactly what "got him disappeared" as it remains a mystery.  

The other, well, I feared something like that.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Secondly, it seems as if you are looking for a punishment handed down to Penn State to somehow correct larger systemic issues that you find to be corrupt, immoral, and/or unjust.  No singular punishment is going to accomplish that.  Could it have been even more severe?  Sure.  Would some have been critical that whatever that more severe punishment was, it wasn't severe enough?  Most likely.



I read a statement from Emmert saying that "For the next several years now, Penn State can focus on the work of rebuilding its athletic culture, not worrying about whether or not it's going to a bowl game."  It's my hope that by allowing the program to continue but with significant penalties, the emphasis on sports above all will change over time.  There will always be those who will idolize Paterno, sadly, but I think that many eyes have been opened as to the truth of how his program was run and the influence he had over the university.  Power corrupts, and so on...  Hopefully the severity of the punishment will cause other institutions to realize that if they're faced with a similar situation, sweeping it under the rug will only make things worse in the long run (in addition to being morally reprehensible, but that didn't seem to bother Paterno et al.)

Is it unfair that the current players will likely suffer for something that they had no part in?  Yes, but no more unfair than what happened to the players at USC because Reggie Bush took money when he shouldn't have, or what happened to the players at Ohio State because some of them accepted cash and free tattoos.  

You know the thing I've never understood about Paterno's legacy, even before the scandal hit?  People go on about all he did for Penn State, and yes, he did significantly increase their endowment, but during his time tuition there rose continually to the point that PSU is the most expensive state school in the country.  I find it hard to believe that all that money went toward improving academics.


----------



## am1 (Jul 23, 2012)

Any legal opinions on here if former players can sue?  Students? And have a chance of winning.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 23, 2012)

The $60 million penalty will come right out of the tax payers in the State of Pennsylvania.  I think the law suits will dwarf the NCAA penalties.  So, what is Mr. Paterno's ultimate contribution to Penn State and his supporters?


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 23, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> First. let's just be clear that there has never been a permanent "death penalty".  That term refers to suspending a program in its entirety for at least a year.  There is no precedent, and possibly no jurisdiction by any body external to the university, for permanently disbanding an athletic program.
> 
> Secondly, it seems as if you are looking for a punishment handed down to Penn State to somehow correct larger systemic issues that you find to be corrupt, immoral, and/or unjust.  No singular punishment is going to accomplish that.  Could it have been even more severe?  Sure.  Would some have been critical that whatever that more severe punishment was, it wasn't severe enough?  Most likely.
> 
> ...



You raise good points. And yes, a singular reaction to Penn wouldn't cure the culture but might send a warning to others. I'm not sure even this penalty is sufficient to cause meaningful change. I'm also not invested in college football (and I'm not a proponent of football at all, but that's another story) but I am dismayed at the culture which has developed surrounding the sport. I agree with others here that the civil lawsuits which will eventually follow will no doubt result in larger penalties, and that Penn will not forget this calamity any time soon. 

I am sympathetic to those who thru no fault of their own will be penalized for this, yet...that's likely the main motivator for future positive change. 

Frankly, I think the entire board of trustees and admin management at Penn should quit or be fired. The kind of leadership which resulted in decades of issues should have no place in our schools. And, it seems this is starting to occur:

http://articles.cnn.com/2012-07-19/us/us_pennsylvania-sandusky-probe_1_penn-state-board-jerry-sandusky-karen-peetz


----------



## Tia (Jul 23, 2012)

Very suspicious indeed......... including the search re how to destroy a hard drive on home computer. Maybe have watched too much TV  but that search could of easily been done by someone illegally entering the house to look for more evidence that might of existed.



Beefnot said:


> There had been a rumor in 2011 surfaced by the guy who had originally broken the Sandusky story that this thing might be far, far, bigger than just Sandusky.  The type of stuff that can cause people to disappear.


----------



## SunSand (Jul 24, 2012)

The NCAA "death penalty" would actually have been a better deal for Penn State.  Instead, PSU received a sentence of life without parole.  You basically are still alive, but you are much better off dead.  For certain, this is the end of the road for PSU football.  Since football revenues fund most other non-revenue generating sports, say goodbye to PSU dominance in women's volleyball, etc.  The downward spiral will not be fun to see.


----------



## pjrose (Jul 24, 2012)

Elan said:


> Well, the penalties handed down seem like a hand slap to me.  4 year bowl ban, $60M fine, and vacating of wins back to 1998.  The only penalty with teeth is the scholarship reduction (20 per year for 4 years).



As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers.  The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.  

I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims.  But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.  

And punishing students wanting to go to college?  students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jul 24, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> I ask the question...under what circumstances would it be acceptable to remove football in its entirety from a university? If not now, when? Never?



I think the answer is clearly never.  I think the NCAA regrets giving the death penalty to SMU and they've made the decision to never dole it out again.  If they didn't apply the death penalty in this case, then they never will.

I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment.  The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals.  It was very much a plea deal.


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 24, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I think the answer is clearly never.  I think the NCAA regrets giving the death penalty to SMU and they've made the decision to never dole it out again.  If they didn't apply the death penalty in this case, then they never will.
> 
> I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment.  The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals.  It was very much a plea deal.



Unfortunately, I think you are absolutely correct. I haven't read a significant amount of the info on this specific case, and not sure I ever want to, but from what I understand it is my opinion that Penn got off light.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 24, 2012)

pjrose said:


> As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers.  The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.
> 
> I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims.  But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.
> 
> And punishing students wanting to go to college?  students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.



The $60M wasn't a number chosen out of thin air - it's equivalent to the revenue of the PSU football program in a given year.  The NCAA said that the money has to go toward programs and charities benefiting child victims of abuse, but that it can't fund programs at PSU.  They also said that the money can't be taken from other athletic programs (like women's sports or other men's sports).  

I've read that at least a few of the victims have already filed civil suits against the university - I'd guess the board of directors will attempt to settle as many of these as possible out of court to avoid more negative publicity.

As for the scholarship reductions, it's standard for the NCAA to do this.  It's been done before, to several other schools whose infractions were very minor compared to what happened at PSU.  While it does mean that there are fewer overall scholarships available nationwide, it doesn't prevent students from seeking to make a deal with another school.  I think the kids who are currently on scholarship at PSU will suffer the most because at this point they're not going to have much chance to try and get another scholarship for the 2012/2013 school year.  Next year, though?  It wouldn't surprise me to see some of the most talented athletes transfer.


----------



## am1 (Jul 24, 2012)

The scholarship reduction and ability for players to transfer and immediately play is in hopes that Penn State is not eligible for a major bowl or the Big 10 Championship.  The NCAA and BIG 10 have no interest in being embarrassed and losing money.  

The death penalty would have put the BIG 10 under the 12 teams needed to have a conference championship game.  

This is the world that major college sports lives in.


----------



## Elan (Jul 24, 2012)

pjrose said:


> As pointed out above, the $60M fine will be paid by the PA taxpayers.  The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.
> 
> I don't know what would be the right penalties, but those I don't agree with....unless part of the 60M is divided among the victims.  But then there's the problem of more alleged victims coming out of the woodwork for a share of the pie.
> 
> And punishing students wanting to go to college?  students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.



 I should have been more clear that my comments were in the context of doing harm to the football program.  Believe me, that's all that this is about for PSU.  When I said that only the scholarship reduction had any teeth, I meant in terms of hurting the football program.  As large as PSU's fan base is, the school could likely procure $60M in (additional) donations in a year or less.  The bowl ban is not that harmful either as PSU has not been great on the field in recent history.  The team was typically bowl eligible, but it's not like they were a consistent top 10 program.  The scholarship reduction hurts the most because it has a big impact (65 scholarships vs 85 for their competition), and most importantly, it's long lasting.  Going 4 years with 20 less scholarships will set the football program back for nearly a decade.


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 24, 2012)

pjrose said:


> The scholarship reduction will hurt kids seeking an education.
> 
> And punishing students wanting to go to college?  students who weren't even part of the university? no, that I don't like.



this is not really much of an issue IMO.

if a kid wanted to go to college at PSU to play football, he likely was pretty good at football.  4 and 5 star athletes tend to have a minimum of 30-40 scholarship offers (and could have more except many schools who know they have no chance don't bother to offer).  the top 10 QB who is currently "committed" to PSU also has offers from UVA, UConn, Rutgers and Florida among others. if a player with less talent misses the cut with PSU, they'll still have a chance to get an education at Ohio U or Miami (OH) or so on...

there'll be 10 kids a year across the entire country over the next 4 years or so who knew they were borderline anyway who won't get a football scholarship somewhere...but none of the kids PSU would have been recruiting will fail to get a football scholarship due to this sanction.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2012)

I don't understand why some are expecting the $60M to come from the taxpayers?  No doubt eventually the financial hit from all this is going to nearly cripple Penn State, and thus impact the taxpayers, but it's going to take years for the civil proceedings that will cause the crippling to be processed.  In the meantime, Penn State is sitting on a huge endowment and the $60M represents just one year's average revenues from the football program.  It's to be implemented immediately - I would think that public pressure from the taxpayers will force Penn State to self-fund it?  Now down the road the taxpayers won't be able to bring public pressure when Penn State's coffers might be depleted, but right now they've got the money - why shouldn't they have to spend it?

The NCAA hasn't specified where the money must come from but they have said from where it can't.


> Q. You mentioned the $60 million is equivalent to a year's worth of revenue from the football program. Does this also require that that money come from the athletic department or any particular source?
> 
> MARK EMMERT: It does not require a specific source. In universities, like most businesses, money is fungible. But we are insisting that this not come at the cost of reduced programs in the athletic department and other student scholarships.



*****
A couple interesting links from ncaa.org -
7/23/12 Press Conference Remarks
7/23/12 Press Conference Q&A

With a little bit of time and being able to read these things through, I'm impressed with the NCAA's decisions here (despite them still allowing football to be played thus giving a reason and a place for the Million Martyr Movement to congregate during home games.)  Every sanction they imposed was carefully thought out, has significance to Penn State's program, and should result in an erosion of the poisonous culture.  I especially love that there will be outside oversight to make sure that the sanctions to which Penn State has agreed will be implemented, that PSU is now under a five-year probationary period with the NCAA, and that the NCAA is reserving the right to impose sanctions on individuals following whatever Court actions take place.

My favorite result of the NCAA's sanctions is that Joe Paterno's legacy has been destroyed.  Others' have been as well, but his is the one that matters most.  He is the one who is most responsible for the cover-up that enabled Jerry Sandusky to molest multiple victims over a period of years, and he is the one who was both symbolically and literally placed on a pedestal in that community.  The higher you climb the further you fall, and his plunge is very well-deserved.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I also think the NCAA gave some leaniency to PSU because of their complete cooperation and agreement not to challenge or appeal any punishment.  The current PSU President did say that a 2 year death penalty was on the table and it was taken off the table since PSU agreed not to make any appeals.  It was very much a plea deal.



Interesting, I was not aware of this "consent decree" of sorts.  In retrospect, this was a good move.  They were effectively able to plea bargain, and not have to devise any self-punishment and risk any too harsh/lenient criticism that would have been directed at them, which would instead be directed toward the NCAA.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Interesting, I was not aware of this "consent decree" of sorts.  In retrospect, this was a good move.  They were effectively able to plea bargain, and not have to devise any self-punishment and risk any too harsh/lenient criticism that would have been directed at them, which would instead be directed toward the NCAA.



Now that you're aware that Penn State collaborated with the NCAA and agreed in advance to accept the sanctions, do you agree that it would be as idiotic for Penn State to take issue with the NCAA's sanctions as it would be for them to take issue with the Freeh report findings?

*****
am1's question upthread about the possibility of former players and students suing, and winning, is interesting.  Are there any legal minds here to answer it?


----------



## geekette (Jul 24, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> ...am1's question  upthread about the possibility of former players and students suing, and winning, is interesting.  Are there any legal minds here to answer it?



not legal mind, dovetail question:  what would they be suing for if they are not Sandy victims?  Loss of ... football wins?  Seriously, what damages would former players/students have suffered to enable them to win a lawsuit?


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2012)

geekette said:


> not legal mind, dovetail question:  what would they be suing for if they are not Sandy victims?  Loss of ... football wins?  Seriously, what damages would former players/students have suffered to enable them to win a lawsuit?



   I dunno.  That's why the question is interesting.

Take individual stats, for instance, as they might apply to juniors and seniors who are still on the team.  If vacating the wins means simply that the program does not get official credit for the wins, there's no harm.  But if vacating the wins means that the individual stats from those wins are also not credited, then couldn't current players be looking at reduced interest (if there ever was any) from NFL scouts?


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 24, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> But if vacating the wins means that the individual stats from those wins are also not credited, then couldn't current players be looking at reduced interest (if there ever was any) from NFL scouts?



nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats.  it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Now that you're aware that Penn State collaborated with the NCAA and agreed in advance to accept the sanctions, do you agree that it would be as idiotic for Penn State to take issue with the NCAA's sanctions as it would be for them to take issue with the Freeh report findings?



Given that piece of info which I was not aware, absolutely yes.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats.  it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.



That is not true.  They put a LOT of weight on NCAA stats.  Watch the NFL draft on ESPN and you will see.  It is extremely stat heavy, in addition to how they have produced athletically and intellectually in the scouting combine, among other factors.  Now that said, whether the stats become official history or are invalidated, that is completely of no consequence to NFL teams.  What they did on the field is a recorded, tangible statistic, irrespective of the asterisk.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 24, 2012)

SunSand said:


> The NCAA "death penalty" would actually have been a better deal for Penn State.  Instead, PSU received a sentence of life without parole.  You basically are still alive, but you are much better off dead.  For certain, this is the end of the road for PSU football.  Since football revenues fund most other non-revenue generating sports, say goodbye to PSU dominance in women's volleyball, etc.  The downward spiral will not be fun to see.



This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that it would be better for Penn State to, on its own, totally shut down its football program for 4 or 5 years.  The financial losses from "life without parole" will steal dollarls from other athletic, and possibly acadamic, programs.

George


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 24, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> if a kid wanted to go to college at PSU to play football, he likely was pretty good at football.  4 and 5 star athletes tend to have a minimum of 30-40 scholarship offers (and could have more except many schools who know they have no chance don't bother to offer).  the top 10 QB who is currently "committed" to PSU also has offers from UVA, UConn, Rutgers and Florida among others. if a player with less talent misses the cut with PSU, they'll still have a chance to get an education at Ohio U or Miami (OH) or so on...



USC has expressed interest in Silas Redd, and I heard on ESPN that PSU has also fielded calls from Georgia, Oklahoma, and several other schools that are interested in some of their players.  My guess is that, as you stated, the most talented players are probably very interesting prospects to other schools.  The scholarship issue could be complicated this late in the year, but it wouldn't surprise me if USC in particular actively recruited some of these guys now that their own NCAA postseason ban has expired.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 24, 2012)

I see the main point of the punishment is to be a deterrent to other schools - not to change PSU.  If the embarassment,  criminal charges,  and civil lawsuits are not enough to change PSU nothing would be.  No, the punishment is primarily designed to scare other schools and coaches straight.


----------



## chalee94 (Jul 24, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> That is not true.  They put a LOT of weight on NCAA stats...whether the stats become official history or are invalidated, that is completely of no consequence to NFL teams...



you argue just to argue, don't you? 



> the NFL puts zero weight on *NCAA-recognized* stats.



production matters to some extent...that's why i phrased the answer as i did.

even so, if prospect A has 20 sacks in the smaller MAC conference against weaker competition and prospect B has 8 sacks in the SEC while spending a lot of time in the opponents backfield being disruptive in non-statistical-generating ways, i can bet that prospect B usually goes much earlier in the draft than prospect A.  prospect B is producing against NFL-type talent while A's skills might translate and they might not.

some of the top stat guys in NCAA history didn't go that high or produce that much in the NFL due to being too short, too slow (relative to NFL competition) or not fitting the NFL system.

but the context of the question was "can players sue because NCAA asterisks on their college stats will hurt their draft position?"  and the answer is still "no."


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2012)

> nah, the NFL puts zero weight on NCAA-recognized stats. it's all about the talent, measurables (height/weight/speed/strength) and decision-making.





chalee94 said:


> you argue just to argue, don't you?



Sometimes.  But in this case, you attempted to correct a naive statement by overstating your counterpoint.  I pointed out the inaccuracy.




chalee94 said:


> Even so, if prospect A has 20 sacks in the smaller MAC conference against weaker competition and prospect B has 8 sacks in the SEC while spending a lot of time in the opponents backfield being disruptive in non-statistical-generating ways, i can bet that prospect B usually goes much earlier in the draft than prospect A.  prospect B is producing against NFL-type talent while A's skills might translate and they might not.
> 
> some of the top stat guys in NCAA history didn't go that high or produce that much in the NFL due to being too short, too slow (relative to NFL competition) or not fitting the NFL system.



No dispute there.



chalee94 said:


> but the context of the question was "can players sue because NCAA asterisks on their college stats will hurt their draft position?" and the answer is still "no."



Agreed.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 24, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Sometimes.  But in this case, you attempted to correct a naive statement by overstating your counterpoint.  I pointed out the inaccuracy. ...



Ha!  It's always necessary with you to get the last word.  And you know, earlier, I was going to let it slide until I watched you go overboard here with Charles.  But turnabout is fair play and you gave me the perfect opening with what you said to him, above ...

Earlier, when I asked if you changed your mind about whether Penn State taking issue with the sanctions would be as idiotic as them taking issue with the Freeh report, you replied by saying that, "Given that piece of info which I was not aware ..."  Well, that's a piece of info that you already had when you first responded to the question, because I pointed it out - "From all reports Penn State agreed in advance to work with the NCAA to determine proper sanctions and subsequently abide by them."  It was actually the reason I questioned why Penn State might take issue with the NCAA sanctions, because they were in on establishing them and agreed in advance to abide by them!

So, I really did plan on letting this go.  But it's just too good to let an opportunity go by to hoist you by your own petard.

But thanks to you and Charles, anyway.  I actually understood the points both of you were making.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 24, 2012)

I am not going to let you get the final word. Why would I want to do that? Thanks for pointing out what you wrote. Oopsy. I overlooked that sentence. My bad. I have no problem saying my bad. I dish it and take it.


----------



## Mel (Jul 24, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> This was the point I was trying to make when I suggested that it would be better for Penn State to, on its own, totally shut down its football program for 4 or 5 years.  The financial losses from "life without parole" will steal dollarls from other athletic, and possibly acadamic, programs.


A self-imposed death penalty might have been better for Penn State itself, but not necessarily for everyone else who will be impacted.  It would also be harder to come back after 4-5 years, without the ability to offer a full roster worth of scholarships.

A self imposed death penalty would also reduce the options for the football players, as they would have to go elsewhere to play, and it would be up to the discretion of PSU whether to grant them a scholarship to cover them until they graduate.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 25, 2012)

*What about the victims?*

It is interesting and instructive on how quickly the attention of the media and most people has turned away from the victims and to the "football program and how innocent students, athletes, etc. etc. will be hurt".

That is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Sandusky to operate his disgusting pedophile operation at Penn State and his "charity to help kids'.  The first thing Paterno and everyone else at Penn State was concerned about was how Sandusky's dirty little operation would hurt Penn State.  Not his child victims.

Sandusky was a depraved child molestor.  He hurt many many children.  Paterno and Penn State helped him.  There is no punishment that can be too severe.  If "innocent" students and athletes are harmed it is because of what Paterno and company did to cover up the actions of a hideous person. That made them hideous people as well.  

The NCAA doesn't want to see this happen again.  Based upon everything I read and see in the media they are fighting a losing battle.  AFTER ALL, it is almighty football that is the important thing.  I mean we have to be able to watch our football team.  Why should WE be inconvienced and miss some really good games?  Why should players be inconvienced and have to move to another school to play a game?  Why should the record books be changed ?  Its just not  fair to US!   What a stupid sick society we live in.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 25, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> It is interesting and instructive on how quickly the attention of the media and most people has turned away from the victims and to the "football program and how innocent students, athletes, etc. etc. will be hurt".
> 
> That is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Sandusky to operate his disgusting pedophile operation at Penn State and his "charity to help kids'.  The first thing Paterno and everyone else at Penn State was concerned about was how Sandusky's dirty little operation would hurt Penn State.  Not his child victims.
> 
> ...



Agreed - you might be interested in this article I read on ESPN.com yesterday:

http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8194993/focus-on-victims-change-football-decision-way

I think he made some excellent points and really got to the heart of the matter, which is that football should never have been more important than the welfare of children (or the welfare of anyone, for that matter).  There's no doubt in my mind that the "football is king and JoePa is God" culture at PSU allowed this to happen.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> It is interesting and instructive on how quickly the attention of the media and most people has turned away from the victims and to the "football program and how innocent students, athletes, etc. etc. will be hurt".
> 
> That is exactly the kind of thinking that allowed Sandusky to operate his disgusting pedophile operation at Penn State and his "charity to help kids'.  The first thing Paterno and everyone else at Penn State was concerned about was how Sandusky's dirty little operation would hurt Penn State.  Not his child victims.
> 
> ...



This is why I was so much in favor of Penn State football NOT taking the field to finish out their season last year following the Grand Jury report, why I was so completely disgusted with the governor decreeing that flags be flown at half-staff in PA with Joe Paterno's passing, why I thought that statue should have been removed the day the Freeh report came out, why I still think that it's wrong to allow Penn State football to take the field in front of an adoring crowd who now believe themselves to be martyrs for their misguided cause ...

There isn't much history for a pedophile scandal of this magnitude but what is available should have been used as a barometer for Penn State and wasn't.  The history tells us that when such a scandal is first unearthed, erring on the side of caution with the child victims in mind is so important at every step of the way, both because to do so validates the victims' plights but also because it stops dead the culture that fed the monster.  The people who are ingrained in that culture had their martyrdom validated by those moves and all the others that took priority over the victims' distress.

I love your rant, completely agree that the reactions of some are sickeningly so over-the-top in their rejection of any punishment that hurts anybody connected to Penn State excepting Sandusky and McQueary.  But, IMO it is possible to remain focused on the victims while at the same time discussing the ramifications of how this scandal affects innocent bystanders with collateral damage.  It should be possible for the media and the rest of us to explore all angles while still validating that the victims should always be the number one priority.  The way I see it, the problem lies with those who would misplace their priorities so wrongly that the collateral damage is considered a higher priority, not with anybody who's now discussing how some folks are being punished for something not of their doing.  It DOES stink that the current players at Penn State have just had their insular worlds turned upside-down.  Acknowledging that doesn't equate to saying that they should not suffer as collateral damage or that their suffering is equal to that of the victims.


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jul 25, 2012)

*USA swimming and child molestation and silence*

Here is part of an article exclusive to the Washington Post about another case of child molestation.  The key thing in all of this is that adults keep their mouths shut instead of helping children who have no way to protect themselves.   It is absolutely infuriating.


Curl-Burke founder Rick Curl faces hearing on former swimmer’s account of underage sexual relationship in 1980s



By Amy Shipley, Wednesday, July 25, 10:08 AM



 USA Swimming has requested an emergency disciplinary hearing against prominent Washington area swimming coach Rick Curl for allegedly engaging in a sexual relationship with a teen swimmer and then paying her and her parents to keep quiet as part of a settlement.

Kelley Currin, whose maiden name was Kelley Davies, said Curl had sexual relations with her for four years beginning in 1983, when she was 13 and he 33. 

Currin said her parents, Gerald and Pamela Davies, learned of the alleged relationship when they read her diary soon before she left for the University of Texas on a swimming scholarship in 1987. She said they confronted Curl, but their attorney discouraged them from pursuing criminal action. 

Instead, in 1989, the parties reached a non-disclosure agreement under which Curl agreed to compensate the family $150,000 over 11 years for the “pain and suffering experienced by her” and because he recognized possible damage to his “reputation and customer relations.” Under the agreement, which The Post has reviewed, Currin agreed not to press charges or speak publicly about it.

Reached Tuesday night, Curl, 62, declined to comment on the matter. Asked if he had any comment about USA Swimming’s action, he replied, “No, I have no idea what that’s all about.” Asked about specific allegations made by Currin, Curl abruptly ended the call.

Curl, who coached Tom Dolan to three medals in the 1996 and 2000 Olympics, attended last month’s U.S. Olympic trials in Omaha on a coaching credential. His Curl-Burke Swim Club, founded in 1978, is one of the largest in the country, with 950 swimmers among its 10 sites in the Washington area. 

Shortly after this article was published online Wednesday, Curl posted a letter on the club’s Web site announcing he was taking a leave of absence effective immediately.

“Curl Burke Swim Club takes very seriously the health and well being of your children that swim for our Club,” the letter read in part. “This article is painful for our Club and myself personally.”

Last week in an interview with The Post, Currin, now 43, said, “I was stifled for 23 years from saying anything because I signed a piece of paper when I was 19. Now, I’ve gotten to the point in my life where I’m done being quiet about it . . . It was a crime, what happened.”

Added Currin in an interview Tuesday: “It’s been 23 years, six months and two days. That’s better than 23 years, six months and three days. All I can do is all I do today to make a change. . . . I can’t go back. It’s very disheartening that I was scared for so long.”

Currin said when her parents became aware of the matter years ago, their attorney told them that Andrew Sonner, then the Montgomery County State’s Attorney, speculated that Curl would get only “a slap on the wrist.” (Sonner, now retired, has told The Post he did not recall the matter.) Currin said she confided in a number of people, including some prominent coaches, but The Post was unable to find any evidence of formal action initiated against Curl.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 25, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Here is part of an article exclusive to the Washington Post about another case of child molestation.  The key thing in all of this is that adults keep their mouths shut instead of helping children who have no way to protect themselves.   It is absolutely infuriating.
> 
> 
> Curl-Burke founder Rick Curl faces hearing on former swimmer’s account of underage sexual relationship in 1980s
> ...



I heard about this - that poor woman.  Shame on her parents for following the guidance of that attorney and not fighting harder for their child, and shame on them for accepting money.  What does this say to their daughter?  That her happiness and well-being have a price?  That the welfare of other children (because odds are she wasn't the only one and in all the years that have passed there have likely been other victims) also has a price?  I'm glad that Currin finally feels free to speak about it, non-disclosure agreement be damned.


----------



## PigsDad (Jul 25, 2012)

CapriciousC said:


> I heard about this - that poor woman.  Shame on her parents for following the guidance of that attorney and not fighting harder for their child, and shame on them for accepting money.  What does this say to their daughter?  That her happiness and well-being have a price?  That the welfare of other children (because odds are she wasn't the only one and in all the years that have passed there have likely been other victims) also has a price?  I'm glad that Currin finally feels free to speak about it, non-disclosure agreement be damned.


By signing the agreement, Currin's parents basically prostituted their daughter out for $150K.  Sickening.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2012)

CapriciousC said:


> I heard about this - that poor woman.  Shame on her parents for following the guidance of that attorney and not fighting harder for their child, and shame on them for accepting money.  What does this say to their daughter?  That her happiness and well-being have a price?  That the welfare of other children (because odds are she wasn't the only one and in all the years that have passed there have likely been other victims) also has a price?  I'm glad that Currin finally feels free to speak about it, non-disclosure agreement be damned.





PigsDad said:


> By signing the agreement, Currin's parents basically prostituted their daughter out for $150K.  Sickening.



It is sometimes too easy to place blame in these situations, and too easy to say that in a certain situation you (the general you, not singling out either of you two) would do things very differently.  I know parents of victims of our local pedophile priest who did everything they thought they possibly could do to protect their children from further harm, and bring those responsible - including the priest as well as those who covered up for him - to justice.  In much the same way as it appears it happened in this situation, those parents eventually faced roadblocks on every single avenue that should have led them to people who were supposedly responsible for safeguarding their innocent children.  In this case it was the DA and their own attorney.  Probably there were police and social service agencies who were aware as well.

The idea that those parents "prostituted" their children by accepting payments further victimizes the parents - in most cases hush money isn't demanded by them, but instead insisted upon by the pedophile's protectors as a perverted way of "making him pay."

This case is as sad as every other and I wouldn't be surprised, either, to learn that this coach victimized other children and was protected by people who should have spoken up.  But this happened years ago when all those roadblocks existed.  These days they're mostly gone, and that means that every child who was in this woman's situation can now freely come forward and demand justice.  I'd hate to think that as they do that, their parents and guardians will be judged as harshly as the monsters who truly victimized them all.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Jul 25, 2012)

pgnewarkboy said:


> Here is part of an article exclusive to the Washington Post about another case of child molestation.  The key thing in all of this is that adults keep their mouths shut instead of helping children who have no way to protect themselves.   It is absolutely infuriating.
> 
> 
> Curl-Burke founder Rick Curl faces hearing on former swimmer’s account of underage sexual relationship in 1980s
> ...



Only a $150,000 penalty for molesting a 13 year old girl?  I wonder what the penalty would have been had Curl sexually molested a 13 year old boy?  We are living in a depraved culture.


----------



## am1 (Jul 25, 2012)

Would have been a 4 year death penalty if Penn State did not agree.  

Some of the Trustees want to challenge this in court.


----------



## geekette (Jul 25, 2012)

pianodinosaur said:


> Only a $150,000 penalty for molesting a 13 year old girl?  I wonder what the penalty would have been had Curl sexually molested a 13 year old boy?  We are living in a depraved culture.



swim coaches do not make much money.  I am guessing that 150k was his ability to pay for his plea deal without losing his home and car, which would make it very difficult for him to be employed in order to give them more money.  I can't imagine he had that cash on hand at age 33 so I figure that most had to come from future earnings.

Not saying it's right, fair, enuf, whatever, but they all agreed to it.

yikes, I can't think about another ickfest.  depraved culture, indeed.  

bring on the happy stories from the Olympics.  an avalanche of fluff sounds good about now.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 25, 2012)

Interesting comment in Sports Illustrated

*"If it were a fine arts professor who was molesting kids and the university covered it up, I don't think they whould shut down the whole (I assume Fine Arts) program".*

Just something to think about.

George


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> Interesting comment in Sports Illustrated
> 
> *"If it were a fine arts professor who was molesting kids and the university covered it up, I don't think they whould shut down the whole (I assume Fine Arts) program".*
> 
> ...



Sure there would be calls for the whole Fine Arts program to be shut down, if the only reason the pedophile had been protected was to further the success of the FA program.  I can see where a pedophile curator would be protected if s/he is able to procure, while others aren't, collection pieces that add value to a substantial FA program.  Yeah, it's twisted, but haven't we learned that any depravity is possible?


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 25, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> Interesting comment in Sports Illustrated
> 
> *"If it were a fine arts professor who was molesting kids and the university covered it up, I don't think they whould shut down the whole (I assume Fine Arts) program".*
> 
> ...



I'd say there is a rather clear difference between a sports program and anything even remotely educational. The fact that you find this question interesting illustrates the importance sports has on our society. The pertinent question should then be whether or not sports should have such influence.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 25, 2012)

am1 said:


> Would have been a 4 year death penalty if Penn State did not agree.
> 
> Some of the Trustees want to challenge this in court.



Every day the grumbling about this gets louder and louder on sportstalk radio here in Boston.  People are getting more and more angry that Penn State was essentially allowed to take a "plea deal" and refuse the multi-year Death Penalty.  Many at first glance said that the sanctions which have been imposed are worse than a Death Penalty, but that was before it came out that it would have been for four years and not the usual one.  Now what they're saying is that if Penn State was basically allowed to choose, haven't they chosen the lesser of two evils?

I don't know what to think.  If the Death Penalty choice would not have allowed all the extras like officially destroying Paterno's legacy, I'd rather the  one that they did choose.  But I would have preferred all of the sanctions that they've been given PLUS not allowing the team to take the field.


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 25, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> The fact that you find this question interesting illustrates the importance sports has on our society.



This comment is pure B--- S----.  You haven't the slightest idea what I was thinking.  Would you say the same thing if I said I found it interesting that Male HS teachers having affairs with female students are treated differently than Female HS teachers having affairs with male students?  I guess if one were an athletic coach and one a guidance counselor, you could work sports into it someway or other.  

George


----------



## Ken555 (Jul 26, 2012)

bogey21 said:


> This comment is pure B--- S----.  You haven't the slightest idea what I was thinking.  Would you say the same thing if I said I found it interesting that Male HS teachers having affairs with female students are treated differently than Female HS teachers having affairs with male students?  I guess if one were an athletic coach and one a guidance counselor, you could work sports into it someway or other.
> 
> George



Your anger has no place here. My comment stands, and I wonder if your defensiveness is due to it striking home.


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 26, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Your anger has no place here. My comment stands, and I wonder if your defensiveness is due to it striking home.



Actually I didnt get the point you were trying to make either. Seemed pretty tenuous assessment to me.


----------



## Tia (Jul 26, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> ........... I know parents of victims of our local pedophile priest who did everything they thought they possibly could do to protect their children from further harm, and bring those responsible - including the priest as well as those who covered up for him - to justice..............



Saw this on the evening news last night, he covered it up and is now going to jail.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monsignor-sentence-20120724,0,19600.story


----------



## bogey21 (Jul 26, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> Your anger has no place here. My comment stands, and I wonder if your defensiveness is due to it striking home.


You must be one smart son of a gun to know better than me what I am thinking.  Yes the quote is from Sports Illustrated.  I guess it is because I am retired but I get many, many offers to subscribe to magazines for $10 or so per year.  I have the time so I take advantage and probably read 20 or 30 different magazines a month from cover to cover.  They range from guns, collectibles, automobiles, sports, news, money management, business, to name a few.  

For you to put thoughts in my mind which don't exist is both rediculous and arrogant!!

George


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 26, 2012)

Tia said:


> Saw this on the evening news last night, he covered it up and is now going to jail.
> http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-monsignor-sentence-20120724,0,19600.story



That's the other big trial that was happening in PA at the same time as Sandusky's, also watched very closely in Boston because he is,"the first Roman Catholic church official to be convicted of a felony for covering up child sex-abuse claims against a priest."

Slowly but surely the tides are turning ...


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 26, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> That's the other big trial that was happening in PA at the same time as Sandusky's, also watched very closely in Boston because he is,"the first Roman Catholic church official to be convicted of a felony for covering up child sex-abuse claims against a priest."
> 
> Slowly but surely the tides are turning ...



Now if they will only come after that summanamich Roger Mahoney here in California.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 26, 2012)

I keep forgetting that all of the investigations aren't completed yet for Penn State.  The feds are still looking into the scope of violations against the Clery Act.  Does anybody know if penalties for those violations can only be monetary fines, or do the feds have the authority to shut down the football program?

Maybe there's still hope ...


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I keep forgetting that all of the investigations aren't completed yet for Penn State.  The feds are still looking into the scope of violations against the Clery Act.  Does anybody know if penalties for those violations can only be monetary fines, or do the feds have the authority to shut down the football program?
> 
> Maybe there's still hope ...


 
I'll say it again, I think the football program has been adequately punished.

It may be time to lock the thread, I think we're all repeating ourselves over and over again.  But, 99% of it has been cordial, which I appreciate.


----------



## geekette (Jul 26, 2012)

I don't think we're done here.  Sue is right, the info is not yet all in.  It has been cordial, I see no reason to lock the thread?


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2012)

geekette said:


> IIt has been cordial, I see no reason to lock the thread?



Hope you're right.  Sometimes it helps to ask the moderators to lock a thread, and then for some reason that makes them want to not lock the thread, just because you asked for the thread to be locked.  Make sense?


----------



## Beefnot (Jul 26, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I keep forgetting that all of the investigations aren't completed yet for Penn State.  The feds are still looking into the scope of violations against the Clery Act.  Does anybody know if penalties for those violations can only be monetary fines, or do the feds have the authority to shut down the football program?
> 
> Maybe there's still hope ...



I cannot envision any legitimate grounds for authority to shut down a football program, only to prosecute criminal violations of federal law or seek civil monetary penalties.  That would likely be an extraordinary abuse of power to attempt to do that, and I imagine such an attempt would be skewered by the courts.


----------



## geekette (Jul 26, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Hope you're right.  Sometimes it helps to ask the moderators to lock a thread, and then for some reason that makes them want to not lock the thread, just because you asked for the thread to be locked.  Make sense?



I didn't look to see if you were the OP.  If you are the OP you can request a lock.  I just don't see the point in doing so quite yet.  

Mods will step in if we get ... unruly.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2012)

geekette said:


> I didn't look to see if you were the OP.  If you are the OP you can request a lock.  I just don't see the point in doing so quite yet.
> 
> Mods will step in if we get ... unruly.



Not the OP here.  When we start going down the path of the Catholic church scandal, it get's pretty close to the edge.


----------



## Tia (Jul 26, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Not the OP here.  When we start going down the path of the Catholic church scandal, it get's pretty close to the edge.



I see both as powerful organizations that knowingly chose to covered up  pedophile sex scandals to protect their own reputation at a high cost to innocent children.


----------



## ace2000 (Jul 26, 2012)

Tia said:


> I see both as powerful organizations that knowingly chose to covered up  pedophile sex scandals to protect their own reputation at a high cost to innocent children.


 
And people have strong emotional feelings about both.


----------



## Elan (Jul 26, 2012)

I'd like to see this thread stick to the Penn State scandal, so that it remains as a forum to discuss related developments as they occur. Yes, much of it is behind us now, but much remains unresolved.
It would be nice if those wishing to discuss other child abuse scandals started new threads. All IMO.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jul 26, 2012)

Probably more than half of the posts that reference the pedophile priest scandal are mine, I'd guess, so please let me explain why I keep bringing it into this discussion.  There simply aren't any other pedophilia scandals of this magnitude that we can reference and compare when trying to figure out how such things can happen to begin with, how they can be unearthed and eventually prosecuted, how they impact the psyches of people ranging all the way from those actually victimized by them to those who have absolutely no connection at all, and, most importantly, how we can all recognize their origins and hopefully stop them from happening again.  Everybody stands to learn something valuable from these tragedies.  Not discussing them is treading dangerous water, minimally akin to the cover-ups that allowed them to occur in the first place.

I've been involved with discussions that centered on only the pedophile priest scandal in real life.  For all the usual talk about how online communication makes people behave more badly than when talking face-to-face, believe me those discussions were infinitely more acrimonious than any of the threads on TUG about Penn State's scandal.  The difference, I think, is that the priest scandal forced people to look with wide open eyes, sometimes for the very first time, at people in the institution that they'd entrusted with their souls.  To a believer, a communicant in the catholic church, nothing is more important.  For many, traditionally, nothing had been considered more immune from prosecution than the priestly hierarchy.

If we talked here about those types of things in detail then I have no doubt that the two scandals should not be compared and contrasted.  All of this is only my opinion but I don't think any of us have brought up comparisons that aren't relevant to what happened at Penn State.  I also don't think that we've allowed ourselves to turn this thread or any of the others into disrespectful discussions.  Until we do turn ugly (which I really don't expect considering how far we've come already) I hope that we can continue on as we have been.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 26, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> I keep forgetting that all of the investigations aren't completed yet for Penn State.  The feds are still looking into the scope of violations against the Clery Act.  Does anybody know if penalties for those violations can only be monetary fines, or do the feds have the authority to shut down the football program?
> 
> Maybe there's still hope ...



As far as I know, Clery Act violations are only punishable by monetary fines.  I was an adjunct professor at a state university in California several years ago, and we had a rash of sexual assaults on campus (female students being assaulted in empty stairwells, etc. after dark).  The administration was very quick to instruct all of us to tell our classes about the incidences and to encourage the female students to either walk in groups or to call campus security for an escort.  They also posted notices, sent out e-mails, put the info in the school paper, etc.  Thankfully the assailant was caught (he was not a student), but in the interim the campus really pulled together to protect the female students.  I'm sure that there were concerns about potential fines for not reporting and distributing the information, but there was also genuine concern on the part of everyone I worked with to protect the young women we saw every day.  It's interesting to me that PSU (which has about three times the number of students as the school at which I taught) was so lackadaisical about Clery Act enforcement when the school I was employed by emphasized the requirements and appropriate actions to all of us at the beginning of each semester.


----------



## tfalk (Jul 27, 2012)

I'll go on record stating I think Sandusky, Spanier, Curley and Shultz should be behind bars or heading there soon... that being said...

Having read the Freeh report cover to cover, something is still bothering me.  Aside from Freeh's *opinion*, I didn't come away from the report with the belief that there was hard *proof* that Paterno actually covered up this entire thing.  The others, yes, but I haven't seen anything I would consider proof for Paterno covering things up.  Apparently, I'm not the only one... 

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archiv...eak-to-non-existent-on-the-current-record.php

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/07/the-case-against-joe-paterno-part-two.php

I'm certain a number of the more vocal people here will blow this off but I'll reserve judgement on Joe before I join the list of people kicking his corpse.


----------



## am1 (Jul 27, 2012)

tfalk said:


> Having read the Freeh report cover to cover, something is still bothering me.  Aside from Freeh's *opinion*, I didn't come away from the report with the belief that there was hard *proof* that Paterno actually covered up this entire thing.  The others, yes, but I haven't seen anything I would consider proof for Paterno covering things up.  Apparently, I'm not the only one...



He knew about it.  Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact.  In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty.  But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least.  He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law.  That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.


----------



## CapriciousC (Jul 27, 2012)

am1 said:


> He knew about it.  Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact.  In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty.  But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least.  He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law.  That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.



He lied to the grand jury back in November of last year, saying that he had no knowledge of the 1998 incident, when there's a fair bit of evidence to the contrary.  If he were still alive, there's a chance he'd be up for perjury charges like Schultz and Curley.  Also, under the Clery Act, he's considered a mandatory reporter, and he failed in that duty.


----------



## markel (Jul 27, 2012)

am1 said:


> He knew about it.  Sandusky was still allowed on campus many years after the fact.  In a court of law he maybe he would not be found guilty.  But he is guilty of failing to follow through at the least.  He always expected much more of his players than just staying on the right side of the law.  That is maybe why people have since judged him the way they have.



Agreed.

Morals, morals, morals.

Some may think that it ashame that all of JoePa's years of coaching have basically amounted to nothing with this scandal and his legacy.

D1 college football is a BIG business and I'm sure that many programs violate rules, but it is hard to feel sorry for anyone, even a legend, who had any inclination of this type of abuse and didn't follow through. And when I say follow through I mean that if I were in his position and was told this I would certainly have called the police immediately, not just my "higher ups".


----------



## VivianLynne (Jul 27, 2012)

Particularly so as the Clery Act came about due to the rape and murder of college student at another college/university in PA .... in the latter part of the 1980's.


----------



## am1 (Aug 6, 2012)

Still hope yet.  Some of the board members have filed an appeal.  

Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 6, 2012)

am1 said:


> Still hope yet.  Some of the board members have filed an appeal.
> 
> Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.



Hope? Hmm...


----------



## Elan (Aug 6, 2012)

am1 said:


> Still hope yet.  Some of the board members have filed an appeal.



  After I read the chronology of the sanction "negotiations" on ESPN.com the other day, I figured this was coming.  

  While I'm supportive of the NCAA's sanctions, they left themselves wide open for appeal/dismissal by not following due process.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 6, 2012)

Well well well.  So this "consent decree" was never brought to the Board for a vote.  So Penn State may have not technically consented to anything? Interesting indeed.


----------



## Tia (Aug 6, 2012)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/psu-trustee-letter-says-plans-195321552--ncaaf.html


----------



## Elan (Aug 6, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> Well well well.  So this "consent decree" was never brought to the Board for a vote.  So Penn State may have not technically consented to anything? Interesting indeed.



  This is the OTL article I read the other day that details the chronology of the sanctioning.   Quite interesting, IMO:

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...-brought-penn-state-football-brink-extinction


----------



## chalee94 (Aug 7, 2012)

am1 said:


> Still hope yet.  Some of the board members have filed an appeal.
> 
> Penn State does not have to accept the penalties if it chooses to leave the NCAA.



if they leave the NCAA, who are they going to play in football that will fill up that 100,000+ seat stadium?  the robert morris eagles from the NAIA?

if the NCAA takes more time to review the situation, that would put the death penalty back on the table.

regardless, it keeps PSU's scandal in the news.


----------



## am1 (Aug 7, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> if they leave the NCAA, who are they going to play in football that will fill up that 100,000+ seat stadium?  the robert morris eagles from the NAIA?
> 
> if the NCAA takes more time to review the situation, that would put the death penalty back on the table.
> 
> regardless, it keeps PSU's scandal in the news.



That is the boards choice.  If they feel they have been wronged then they should leave.  

Yes the death penalty would have been a fair penalty. 

The board should have been informed of the sanctions before they were official.  But they would have been best to take the punishment and move on.  This just keeps dragging the school down.


----------



## Elan (Aug 7, 2012)

What _should_ have happened, IMO:

1) The NCAA should have told the BOT that either they sign a document declaring that they fully accept the findings of the Freeh report, or the NCAA would pursue it's own investigation.

2) Once that was out of the way, the NCAA should have let the BOT determine a suitable penalty and propose it to the NCAA infractions committee for vote.  This process could have been iterated a few times until an agreement was reached.  

  The NCAA had the leverage, but they should have let the BOT lead the process, which would've absolved the NCAA from appearing heavy-handed.


----------



## chalee94 (Aug 7, 2012)

Elan said:


> ...which would've absolved the NCAA from appearing heavy-handed.



not sure the NCAA has ever cared whether they appear heavy-handed.

there's not much tv money with the NAIA or other affiliations.  and their conference would have to kick them out.

the NCAA is the only game in town.  if you don't like the NCAA's ruling, feel free to appeal...to the NCAA.

"hey dad, can i stay up to midnight."

"no."

"i'd like to appeal that."

"that's fair enough...

no."


----------



## Elan (Aug 7, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> not sure the NCAA has ever cared whether they appear heavy-handed.
> 
> there's not much tv money with the NAIA or other affiliations.  and their conference would have to kick them out.
> 
> ...



  That's the point.  They may not care, but by coming across as they did they left themselves more vulnerable to legal action.  If they'd made PSU lead the process, PSU would have less legal leverage.

  "hey dad, can i stay up to midnight."

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

  "ok, how about 11?"

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

  "ok, how about 10?"

"why don't you come up with a more reasonable hour?"

  "ok, how about 9?"

 "That's a great idea.  I'm glad you suggested that and that we could come to a mutual understanding. Now, go put in writing that you asked to stay up until 9, and I'll sign it."


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 7, 2012)

I am really trying to give the Board some sort of the benefit of the doubt here, trying to figure out how it helps them to challenge the NCAA sanctions.  I want very badly to believe that their reasoning is in looking ahead to the civil court proceedings, that they are trying to mitigate the acceptance of guilt that's inherent in the President's consent decree.  That acceptance is going to be a factor in the civil settlements.  It would make some sense, perverted sense, for the BOT to want to limit monetary damages. 

But sadly I think the challenge is more about the arrogance of Penn State's BOT than the money.  They've been arrogant throughout the whole process,  right up to the disagreements reported in the days preceding the removal of Paterno's statue.  It's mind-boggling but there was at least one board member who adamantly stated that the statue would "never" come down.  Obviously the "culture of reverence" for the football program is still in play.

I hope the NCAA sticks to its guns.  When they announced the sanctions they said that if Penn State appealed them then the Death Penalty would be back on the table.  Good.  I hope this remedy is still in play.


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 7, 2012)

This seems like a suicide move by the Board.  The punishment they were handed down was essentially a plea bargained sentence.  Do you really wanna go there with the NCAA?  On g.p., if their maneuver fails, the NCAA oughtta put on the surgical gloves and tell 'em "you know you effed up, right?  Now, the punishment we're gonna hand down is _really_ gonna hurt."


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 7, 2012)

Elan said:


> What _should_ have happened, IMO:
> 
> 1) The NCAA should have told the BOT that either they sign a document declaring that they fully accept the findings of the Freeh report, or the NCAA would pursue it's own investigation.
> 
> ...



For every argument in favor of your approach, there is an equally compelling argument on the NCAA-led approach.  It is what it is now.  Penn State will have no one to blame but themselves if the NCAA gets all up in Penn States a$$ over this.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Aug 7, 2012)

Penn State is a Football legacy, with the Death Sentence the NCAA is cutting its own throat to!

I'm one of those that believes you shouldn't be punishing the players for the moron's(i won't call him a coach anymore, a coach not only leads and teaches with his words but his actions also) actions.  These kids fight their whole lives to get to the level on D1 football and to play on a team like Penn state and now because of the moron, we are going to hurt more children

I played some high school ball and even had family(not me, i'm still not a hard enough worker) who got scholarships(not full) to schools to play other sports(Basketball, Lacrosse) so i know what kind of dedication it takes to get to that kind of a level....These kids deserve much more then just being an after thought


----------



## Elan (Aug 7, 2012)

Beefnot said:


> For every argument in favor of your approach, there is an equally compelling argument on the NCAA-led approach.  It is what it is now.  Penn State will have no one to blame but themselves if the NCAA gets all up in Penn States a$$ over this.



  I agree that PSU may be opening themselves up to getting bent over and, quite frankly, if this challenge gathers steam, I hope they do.  Nonetheless, I contend that the NCAA could have done a better job at covering their a$$ and still arrived at the same result.  Another few days of deliberation and we wouldn't be having this discussion.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 7, 2012)

Elan said:


> I agree that PSU may be opening themselves up to getting bent over and, quite frankly, if this challenge gathers steam, I hope they do.  Nonetheless, I contend that the NCAA could have done a better job at covering their a$$ and still arrived at the same result.  Another few days of deliberation and we wouldn't be having this discussion.



+1 

Of course, in my opinion, PSU got off light. Contesting it should only make it worse.


----------



## Mel (Aug 7, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> I played some high school ball and even had family(not me, i'm still not a hard enough worker) who got scholarships(not full) to schools to play other sports(Basketball, Lacrosse) so i know what kind of dedication it takes to get to that kind of a level....These kids deserve much more then just being an after thought


Isn't that exactly what the BOT is doing to them?  They need an answer now, before the season starts, not in a few months.  

For the regular students, this is also terrible.  There are many who are upset that the sanctions were not harsh enough, and take their anger our on current students (when it should only be aimed at the knukleheads who protested when Paterno was filed).  How do you think those people are going to act now?  There will be backlash, and the current students don't deserve that.

If the BOT didn't in fact agree to the finding of the Freeh report, then the time to act should have been immediately following the statement that they did, not after the NCAA announced sanctions.  Certain Trustees feel the NCAA did not give them due process, didn't follow their own bylaws, but those bylaws allow for the NCAA to skip the investigation step if both sides agree to the facts in question.  The NCAA moved forward with the understanding that both PSU and the NCAA agreed to the facts as stated in the Freeh report.

It would be interesting to see what these people would have made as a counter-offer.  which part bothers them the most?  Is it the money?  The loss of scholarships, post-season play?  It could be very telling.  Yes, it's possible the NCAA board is made up of people who wanted to get back at PSU, but that's irrelevant.  PSU does not have the upper hand.  These people are living in a fantasy world if they they will end up with fewer sanctions.  They seem to think that not only is football king, but PSU football is the king of all kings.  They're used to getting their way, but I don't think that's going to happen this time.

And meanwhile, what do you do with the football players?  The NCAA would be smart to issue a waiver for them, pending any final decisions.  Meanwhile the ones who chose to stay are in limbo.  And the rest of the student body is in limbo too.  Fighting this will cost money, and will result in even bigger losses if the death penalty is imposed.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 8, 2012)

I can't believe some members of the BOT are taking this action!  I was actually in the camp that thought the BOT acted very favorably in this process.  Not anymore!

I actually thought PSU got off light and they got off light because of the plea deal the president made with the NCAA.  Now these idiots want to contest that plea deal!?  Good, let them appeal.  Now I hope that the NCAA puts the death penalty back on the table as part of the appeal and I think it would be poetic justice if they exercised it!  

Don't these idiots realize that this just continues to shine a negative light on PSU and prevents any substantial healing from taking place?

I don't buy the argument that this is hurting the current PSU players.  They're all allowed to transfer without penalty during the WHOLE time of the 4 year bowl ban.  That makes them perpetual free agents for the next 4 years.  IMO it actually provides them with a significant advantage over almost all other college scholarship athletes.  If they don't like their situation at any time over the next 4 years, they can simply move on and transfer without penalty.  Nine of them already have and I'm sure there will be a lot more in the next 4 years.


----------



## Patri (Aug 8, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I don't buy the argument that this is hurting the current PSU players.  They're all allowed to transfer without penalty during the WHOLE time of the 4 year bowl ban.  That makes them perpetual free agents for the next 4 years.  IMO it actually provides them with a significant advantage over almost all other college scholarship athletes.  If they don't like their situation at any time over the next 4 years, they can simply move on and transfer without penalty.  Nine of them already have and I'm sure there will be a lot more in the next 4 years.



Then that punishes the players at the other colleges who don't get to play, because their spot is taken by a PSU player. The tentacles of the punishment spread to even more innocents.


----------



## am1 (Aug 8, 2012)

Patri said:


> Then that punishes the players at the other colleges who don't get to play, because their spot is taken by a PSU player. The tentacles of the punishment spread to even more innocents.



That is life in the NCAA.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 8, 2012)

Patri said:


> Then that punishes the players at the other colleges who don't get to play, because their spot is taken by a PSU player. The tentacles of the punishment spread to even more innocents.



ALL NCAA athletic scholarships are really just one year deals and they need to be renewed by the school on an annual basis.  The system heavily favors the schools who can just drop players from scholarships very easily.  However, if a player wants to transfer to another school they get penalized and have to sit out a year.  Coaches also routinely break their contracts and move around without significant penalties.

I actually think the way it is now for the PSU players is the way it should be for all NCAA athletic scholarship players.


----------



## am1 (Aug 8, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> ALL NCAA athletic scholarships are really just one year deals and they need to be renewed by the school on an annual basis.  The system heavily favors the schools who can just drop players from scholarships very easily.  However, if a player wants to transfer to another school they get penalized and have to sit out a year.  Coaches also routinely break their contracts and move around without significant penalties.
> 
> I actually think the way it is now for the PSU players is the way it should be for all NCAA athletic scholarship players.


\

The players get a bad deal but if they are able to transfer at a whim they will never graduate.  Also the will go to the highest bidder which will create a lot more penalties for schools.


----------



## chalee94 (Aug 8, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> Penn State is a Football legacy, with the Death Sentence the NCAA is cutting its own throat to!



how so?

for one thing, the NCAA derives most of its revenues from the basketball side (the big march tournament).  they don't get nearly that much from the football side currently.

i suspect pretty much all of the hundreds of schools that comprise the NCAA will vote that covering up felonies that harm children in order to preserve your football reputation deserves the heaviest penalties that can be dealt...


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 8, 2012)

chalee94 said:


> i suspect pretty much all of the hundreds of schools that comprise the NCAA will vote that covering up felonies that harm children in order to preserve your football reputation deserves the heaviest penalties that can be dealt...



From the Elan's ESPN article that detailed the chronology and negotiations leading up to the sentence, the NCAA had been very much in favor of a 4-year dealth penalty.


----------



## pianodinosaur (Aug 8, 2012)

The BOT at Penn State has disgraced the University and has disgraced the State of Pennsylvania.  It is now quite obvious that the BOT is more interested in the football program than the safety of innocent children. Frankly, I think the NCAA should not only give Penn State's football program the death penalty, but give all varsity sports at Penn State a permanent death penalty because of the actions taken by the BOT.   I no longer care if current athletes are unfairly impacted or not.  That punishment would fit the crime.  My sympathies lie with the victims of the sexual abuse and the cover up.


----------



## Mel (Aug 8, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I don't buy the argument that this is hurting the current PSU players.  They're all allowed to transfer without penalty during the WHOLE time of the 4 year bowl ban.  That makes them perpetual free agents for the next 4 years.  IMO it actually provides them with a significant advantage over almost all other college scholarship athletes.  If they don't like their situation at any time over the next 4 years, they can simply move on and transfer without penalty.  Nine of them already have and I'm sure there will be a lot more in the next 4 years.


Not only does this not hurt the players, but it also might be a mitigating factor for PSU, in terms of recruiting.  Recruits who are likely to get loads of play time as a freshman elsewhere will go elsewhere, but those needing a small amount of development might be inclined to go to PSU if they will get more play time (and more opportunity to improve).  Then after one or two years, they can transfer directly into another program.


Patri said:


> Then that punishes the players at the other colleges who don't get to play, because their spot is taken by a PSU player. The tentacles of the punishment spread to even more innocents.


Yes, those transfers could impact the number of freshmen being recruited, but the ones that are dropped are just as likely to be picked up at PSU - the net number of players coming into the system is unchanged.  It's just a matter of where they play.  The only ones really negatively impacted are those that enter PSU as freshmen the final year of sanctions, who might not have the opportunity to transfer - they might be "stuck" at PSU, which may or may not be a bad thing at that point.  Of course that will be academic if PSU ends up with the death penalty.


pianodinosaur said:


> The BOT at Penn State has disgraced the University and has disgraced the State of Pennsylvania.  It is now quite obvious that the BOT is more interested in the football program than the safety of innocent children. Frankly, I think the NCAA should not only give Penn State's football program the death penalty, but give all varsity sports at Penn State a permanent death penalty because of the actions taken by the BOT.   I no longer care if current athletes are unfairly impacted or not.  That punishment would fit the crime.  My sympathies lie with the victims of the sexual abuse and the cover up.


I'm starting to think the same way.  Kick PSU out of the NCAA, and allow the current student athletes the option to transfer.    

I suspect the BOT executive committee acted as they did to avoid this exact mess.  They knew they had a couple of newly minted BOT members who would never accept any appropriate punishment.  They tried to protect the BOT from "itself."  The NCAA didn't want the proposed sanctions publicized until everything was set; if they had been shared with those BOT members, in all likelihood they would have talked, and forced the issue.


----------



## Elan (Aug 9, 2012)

Penn State to ratify sanctions (from ESPN.com):

-------------------------------------------------------

The Penn State University board of trustees will hold a special meeting Sunday and is expected to formally ratify the consent decree of sanctions agreed to last month by university president Rodney Erickson and the NCAA, "Outside the Lines" has learned.

Board chairwoman Karen Peetz called the meeting "so that there can be no misunderstanding as to where we as the board stand."

Erickson and the NCAA signed a consent decree on July 23 that laid out a package of sanctions against the university and football program as a result of the Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal. The sanctions include a $60 million fine, a four-year bowl ban, scholarship losses and the vacating of wins from 1998-2011.

The resolution the board will consider states "the process followed by the (NCAA) was unfortunate and the punitive sanctions are difficult," and refers to the consent decree as "binding."

The outcome of Sunday's meeting seems almost certain, sources told "Outside the Lines," because two straw polls about whether to appeal the sanctions were taken by a quorum of trustees during a conference call Tuesday.

That call may have constituted an illegal board meeting, given the votes taken, the number of trustees present and the lack of public notice given about the call -- a requirement of the Pennsylvania Sunshine Act.

Only a few of the more than 20 trustees on the Tuesday call said they wished to appeal the NCAA sanctions.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Aug 9, 2012)

Elan said:


> Penn State to ratify sanctions (from ESPN.com):
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------
> 
> ...



I hope they do vote to appeal the sanctions and consent decree!

I'd then love to see the NCAA, after "proper due process" of course, nail those arrogant bastards with the death penalty!


----------



## Beefnot (Aug 9, 2012)

Maybe only a few rogue trustees were flapping their gums.  Maybe this vote will restore order to the Matrix.


----------



## Elan (Aug 9, 2012)

My understanding is that only 4 of 32 trustees were behind the appeal. Don't quote me on that one.


----------



## Ken555 (Aug 10, 2012)

Elan said:


> My understanding is that only 4 of 32 trustees were behind the appeal. Don't quote me on that one.



  :hysterical:


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 10, 2012)

It's good to see some measure of sanity here, good to learn that a majority of the board members saw the reasonableness of not challenging the NCAA sanctions.

It appears this appeal was spearheaded by one of the newest BOT members, Anthony Lubrano, PSU '82, who as an alumnus was very critical of the board's decision last November to fire Paterno, and then won a seat in the spring election partly on the strength of a Paterno tribute that he ran on TV.

It didn't take any effort at all for most people to see how much worse things could be if Lubrano's appeal continued (heck, just look at the practically-unanimous agreement here on TUG!)  I've gotta believe that same sense is finally prevailing for most of the board members and can well imagine that they'd finally heard enough from this guy and his few followers.  Good on them for at least making an effort to learn their new reality AND to try to teach it to those who are still in LaLaLand.  If the majority board follows this path then maybe there is hope for a new culture.


----------



## SueDonJ (Aug 10, 2012)

Ken555 said:


> :hysterical:



HAhaha!  Funny!


----------



## Elan (Aug 10, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> HAhaha!  Funny!



  Yeah, funny!   

  Ok, don't quote me anywhere that it might matter.  

  What I was trying to say is I remember the 4, but I'm not positive on the 32.  When I read that figure it seemed like about 20 more members than a BOT needs to have, so I'm questioning whether it's is correct.  I could Google, I guess......


----------



## Elan (Aug 10, 2012)

Clemson Fan said:


> I hope they do vote to appeal the sanctions and consent decree!
> 
> I'd then love to see the NCAA, after "proper due process" of course, nail those arrogant bastards with the death penalty!



  That would be true justice, but it appears as though more rational heads will prevail.  

  Either way, the football program should be largely irrelevant for many, many years.  For a school like Penn State, that's like cutting it's heart out.


----------



## am1 (Sep 8, 2014)

What a shame.

Hopefully Franklin has the class to donate any bonus received due to playing in the post season to the victims or to awareness.


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 8, 2014)

GGGGGGRRRRR!i!


----------



## DeniseM (Sep 8, 2014)

I am lost - there have been no posts in this thread for the last 2 years, and then two new ones today - what are you referring to?


----------



## SueDonJ (Sep 8, 2014)

from Time.com:

NCAA lifts Penn State's postseason ban

(Sorry, I could swear the post before mine had a link but maybe that's because I was seeing/hearing the story in multiple outlets.)


----------



## Clemson Fan (Sep 8, 2014)

The fact is the NCAA is falling apart at the seems!  The big conferences want the autonomy to regulate themselves and they were threatening to leave the NCAA.  The NCAA is doing whatever it can to stay alive, but they're on life support right now.  I predict the NCAA will be gone within the next 5 years.

Penn State really should've gotten the death penalty and this lifting of sanctions is a true travesty IMO!


----------

