Penn St., Sandusky and Joe Paterno

[Merckx index]

Remember what happened to the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad? I foresee a similar fate for Paterno’s statue if it isn’t taken down in an orderly manner, and soon.

That said, I seem to be one of the few who isn't sure the Death Penalty is such a good idea. Many people seem to think the only reason not to shut down the football program is because staff and players will have to leave. But actually there’s another, maybe better, argument: football really is not to blame for this.

Go back to 2001, when McQueary told Paterno he saw Sandusky with a kid in the shower. Paterno told the administrators, but neither he nor they reported it to the police or social services. Why not? Because it would hurt the football program? Come on. In the first place, Sandusky was not employed in the program at that time. Even if he had been, why would reporting him hurt the program? Every large business or organization harbors people like this, when they are exposed, it doesn’t reflect on the organization. Paterno et al. did know about a previous incident in 1998, but the police declined to follow up on it, so the incident in 2001 would not have reflected badly on anyone who reported it at that time. Prior to 2001, Paterno could have very credibly said he had no reason to believe that Sandusky was abusing his position at Second Mile. Just because he was investigated by the police doesn't prove anything. You can't deny someone the chance to carry out some occupation just because of what, prior to 2001, were unsubstantiated allegations.

Why, then, did Paterno cover it up? Apparently because of misplaced loyalty to Sandusky. In their email correspondence, which they surely thought would not be made public, they did not say, "let's not report Sandusky as it will hurt the image of the football program". They said they wanted to treat him "humanely". Everyone is rightfully aghast at this, but it has nothing to do with football. Paterno could have been a coach of another sport, or even some professor, and chosen not to expose a pedophile because of loyalty. The fact that he happened to be a football coach, and an extremely powerful one, is just chance. The deal the University subsequently made with him may show that he had too much power, that the University deferred to him too much, but why is that a reason for the Death Penalty?

It may be (though I doubt it), that the President and others wanted to report Sandusky, but didn't out of deference to Paterno. So one could argue the football program had so much power at PSU that the administrators were willing to commit a crime in order to placate the man in charge of the program. But that still isn't a reason for shutting the program down. That's just a reason for choosing administrators who won't be tempted by power to commit crimes.

Powerful men commit crimes all the time. We punish them, but we don’t take it out on the organization they headed, even when they use that organization to pursue crime. Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace after abusing the power of the Presidency, but we don’t conclude that the Presidency should be terminated for a while. We maybe make laws reducing that power, restructuring the relationships with other organizations.

I personally feel that college football is given too much importance, and it might be a good thing if it were terminated on many campuses. But you make that argument by comparing the benefits and risks of emphasizing football, not because some coach was able to control the administration.

 

[Steve H.]

Remember what happened to the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad? I foresee a similar fate for Paterno’s statue if it isn’t taken down in an orderly manner, and soon.

That said, I seem to be one of the few who isn't sure the Death Penalty is such a good idea. Many people seem to think the only reason not to shut down the football program is because staff and players will have to leave. But actually there’s another, maybe better, argument: football really is not to blame for this.

Go back to 2001, when McQueary told Paterno he saw Sandusky with a kid in the shower. Paterno told the administrators, but neither he nor they reported it to the police or social services. Why not? Because it would hurt the football program? Come on. In the first place, Sandusky was not employed in the program at that time. Even if he had been, why would reporting him hurt the program? Every large business or organization harbors people like this, when they are exposed, it doesn’t reflect on the organization. Paterno et al. did know about a previous incident in 1998, but the police declined to follow up on it, so the incident in 2001 would not have reflected badly on anyone who reported it at that time. Prior to 2001, Paterno could have very credibly said he had no reason to believe that Sandusky was abusing his position at Second Mile. Just because he was investigated by the police doesn't prove anything. You can't deny someone the chance to carry out some occupation just because of what, prior to 2001, were unsubstantiated allegations.

Why, then, did Paterno cover it up? Apparently because of misplaced loyalty to Sandusky. In their email correspondence, which they surely thought would not be made public, they did not say, "let's not report Sandusky as it will hurt the image of the football program". They said they wanted to treat him "humanely". Everyone is rightfully aghast at this, but it has nothing to do with football. Paterno could have been a coach of another sport, or even some professor, and chosen not to expose a pedophile because of loyalty. The fact that he happened to be a football coach, and an extremely powerful one, is just chance. The deal the University subsequently made with him may show that he had too much power, that the University deferred to him too much, but why is that a reason for the Death Penalty?

It may be (though I doubt it), that the President and others wanted to report Sandusky, but didn't out of deference to Paterno. So one could argue the football program had so much power at PSU that the administrators were willing to commit a crime in order to placate the man in charge of the program. But that still isn't a reason for shutting the program down. That's just a reason for choosing administrators who won't be tempted by power to commit crimes.

Powerful men commit crimes all the time. We punish them, but we don’t take it out on the organization they headed, even when they use that organization to pursue crime. Richard Nixon resigned in disgrace after abusing the power of the Presidency, but we don’t conclude that the Presidency should be terminated for a while. We maybe make laws reducing that power, restructuring the relationships with other organizations.

I personally feel that college football is given too much importance, and it might be a good thing if it were terminated on many campuses. But you make that argument by comparing the benefits and risks of emphasizing football, not because some coach was able to control the administration.

Maybe you missed the part of the Freeh report where it was documented Paterno was aware of the 1998 incident and offered Sandusky to continue as assistant coach as long as Paterno was there as head coach. Instead he got a large lump sum payment and accorded advanced status at the university. It appears the four men most entrusted to oversee PSU didn't really care about the football program either, only the money brought in by the football program. To me, it seems as the only way to save PSU and it's football program is to take an extended break until there has been a thorough investigation and those unscrupulous individuals brought to justice. Without it, the stigma will remain, to PSU, college football and the NCAA.
I understand lack of institutional control to be the defining point. There's plenty more in the Freeh report to support the death penalty. Incidents of the athletic department not following its own policies, not reporting potential/real violations, allowing head coach Joe Paterno's outsized influence on discipline and other issues. For years the school didn't even adhere to the federal Clery Act, which requires reporting crimes committed on campus.

 

[BroDeal]

Here's an article on the halo being removed.

Instead of removing the halo, it looks like they could have just written "Livestrong" on it.

 

[Steve H.]

Instead of removing the halo, it looks like they could have just written "Livestrong" on it.

Lol.
http://www.961kiss.com/pages/freakshow.html?article=10274637

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

That said, I seem to be one of the few who isn't sure the Death Penalty is such a good idea.

While you wrote a thoughtful perspective, I respectfully disagree. For the reasons Steve posted, and what I stated in my previous post.

In today's news, it appears the death penalty is definitely on the table, and if not that, I believe the NCAA will seek to administer a very harsh penalty. Mark Emmert, NCAA president, had this to say:

"I've never seen anything as egregious as this in terms of just overall conduct and behavior inside a university and hope never to see it again."

While this could be considered beyond football, it remains that football was the hub, and for many a shield and cash cow that kept them in their ivory tower.

 

[Merckx index]

Looks like multiple years of bowl bans, but no death penalty.

But you football fans who support the death penalty don't seem to appreciate the hard place it puts you in. If you think the trouble at Penn State was not the result of Paterno and maybe a few other individuals, but the institution of football, then you must accept that the same institution is present at other major schools. Either the institution as it exists at Penn State, which you believe deserves the death penalty, was the creation of Paterno, or it is something much larger than Paterno, and could have resulted under many other coaches. So if you wish to indict Penn State football rather than just Paterno, then you must indict college football in general. The institution you are blaming exists all over America, one where coaches become so important that university leaders are afraid to challenge them.

When the Sandusky story first broke, I felt I was being hypocritical by being a fan of the NFL, knowing full well the NFL's lifeblood is the kind of system exemplified by Penn State. One way out of that dilemma is to argue that Paterno was an exception, that most coaches are neither so powerful nor so corrupt. But giving the system the death penalty would be a clear signal that the problem was not just Paterno, but football in general.

The only way I could see to justify the death penalty at PSU and not at other schools as well is by arguing that the system there was created not only by Paterno, but by others who are still present at that school. Then the death penalty would be a warning to those others. But there are no others. All the people complicit in these crimes are gone.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I see what you mean Merckx index about the possibility/reality of a more widespread problem across the NCAA that is born out of the power that breeds corruption. I would not disagree with that. But schools/institutions outside of PSU cannot be indicted now because there is no proof of any wrongdoing that has been brought to light... as far as most of us know. All that might exist outside of PSU are suspicions, perceptions, or even allegations. In the future, football programs across the nation will be punished for NCAA rule violations. That's a guarantee. But NCAA rule violations are a different class of act than the criminal acts related to the Sandusky case.

The purpose of a death penalty for the PSU football program as a result of the Sandusky case is to hand down justice and set precedent for similar criminal acts should they occur elsewhere, be covered up and/or go unreported. Hopefully, we will not ever see another case like the Sandusky case anywhere across the nation.

That said, ESPN sources are claiming that PSU will not receive the death penalty, but will receive punishment on par with the death penalty. The announcement of the punitive measures will take place tomorrow. (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/penn-state-nittany-lions-not-facing-death-penalty-monday-ncaa-source-says) If the measures truly are on par with the death penalty, I would probably support that because it is likely those measures would not rob the PSU football players of a lost season or two. I would guess the players would be innocent victims of a death penalty.

 

[Steve H.]

I see what you mean Merckx index about the possibility/reality of a more widespread problem across the NCAA that is born out of the power that breeds corruption. I would not disagree with that. But schools/institutions outside of PSU cannot be indicted now because there is no proof of any wrongdoing that has been brought to light... as far as most of us know. All that might exist outside of PSU are suspicions, perceptions, or even allegations. In the future, football programs across the nation will be punished for NCAA rule violations. That's a guarantee. But NCAA rule violations are a different class of act than the criminal acts related to the Sandusky case.

The purpose of a death penalty for the PSU football program as a result of the Sandusky case is to hand down justice and set precedent for similar criminal acts should they occur elsewhere, be covered up and/or go unreported. Hopefully, we will not ever see another case like the Sandusky case anywhere across the nation.

That said, ESPN sources are claiming that PSU will not receive the death penalty, but will receive punishment on par with the death penalty. The announcement of the punitive measures will take place tomorrow. (http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/8188629/penn-state-nittany-lions-not-facing-death-penalty-monday-ncaa-source-says) If the measures truly are on par with the death penalty, I would probably support that because it is likely those measures would not rob the PSU football players of a lost season or two. I would guess the players would be innocent victims of a death penalty.

There are other NCAA sports at Penn State, they are getting their hockey team this season, for instance. If football goes down, I think the money will shift to those sports and they will still get the football back and hardly miss a beat. Don't quote me, but I think PSU gets much more money from their medical associations such as the Milton Hershey medical center and research than the football program so the loss of football isn't a death sentence to the university as a whole.
The NCAA is as corrupt as the programs they oversee.
Getting kicked out of the big ten probably would have more repercussions than anything the NCAA will hand down.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

Okay, thanks for that tidbit Steve. I guess we'll see tomorrow if justice is served or not.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

The punishment has been handed out, by the NCAA, and I believe it is fair:

• $60 million fine against PSU.

• Banned its football team from the postseason for four years.

• Forfeiture of all football wins from 1998; stripping Paterno from the title of winningest coach in major college history.

• PSU must also reduce 10 initial and 20 total scholarships each year for a four-year period.

To me the fine could have been higher, but $60m is not a small number. I'm fine with the post-season ban, though it too could have been longer. The one that really must sting, and I think is appropriate, is stripping the team from it's '98 wins. They could have gone bigger than this, or left it out, but I think they were trying to send a message here. This is going to stick in some people's minds, with the visual of Paterno's statue being taken down and removed (rightfully so). Sadly, there are already people on the net saying they don't care and they are defying this ruling.

At least current PSU coach Bill O'Brien said he will fully comply and supports the decision.

In some ways this all could be perceived as being just as bad or worse than the death penalty, considering it wasn't known how long such a penalty would take place. Many at the school were thinking one year ban from football (like SMU, which became two seasons). If that's the case, this current punishment is quite possibly worse than that.

NCAA President Mark Emmert deserves a great deal of credit here. This was a difficult situation, and he acted quickly. More could have been done, and perhaps less could have been done, and there's going to be scrutiny over it. But just to give a comparison, if this had been Pat McQuaid and the UCI, this decision wouldn't likely have happened for many months, and no one would have been able to understand any logic behind the decision. So I give praise to Emmert in this most difficult situation.

It should be noted that Big Ten has given an initial ruling that:

•*PSU will not be allowed to participate in the Big Ten conference title game for the same four years as the NCAA ban.

•*PSU will also not be allowed to share in the conference's bowl revenues for those four years, about a $13 million hit. That money will be donated to children's charities.

I think PSU dodged a bullet here. This also is a tough pill to swallow, but some were calling for the Big Ten to drop PSU entirely.

 

[rickshaw]

NCAA wants to make an omlette.

The punishment has been handed out, by the NCAA, and I believe it is fair:

• $60 million fine against PSU.
.

One report I read said that $60 million was equal to one year's football revenue at PS. I wonder how that compares with the combined budgets of all the teams in the Tour this year (excluding sky)?

Also reported, the goal of these penalties is to cause a cultural change in college athletics. Ethics, responsibility for the safety of children and academic values instead of winning at all costs and the $$ that comes with it.

Pretty tall order.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

As a PSU alum, not sure how to feel about the rulings handed down today. I've been embarrassed since the Sandusky story broke due to a lack of action from everyone who knew the smallest bit of information. It pains me to have my University’s name continue to be dragged through the mud for this. The University is so much more than Football, and I'm tired of the two being one in the same.

This punishment is actually worse than the death penalty. The death penalty would have been one year of no football; the program would have bounced back in two or three years due to the history of Penn State, even though that history is tied tightly to JoePa.

Now you have four year probation and a four year loss in post season revenue.

The wins being vacated were included because the NCAA does not want Paterno's name on their record books for the most wins by a head coach. He's gone, so I feel "meh" about that one.

I always get annoyed with NCAA punishments, as those who committed the infractions are never around to be punished. The President of the University, AD, Head Coach and almost all of the Coaching Staff, all lost their jobs. The Coach has since passed away. And the pr!ck who committed those horrible crimes is behind bars. It's always the wrong people who get punished by the NCAA.

This is not to say that the University should not have expected a punishment, but no one who was involved is around anymore, it just seems wrong in this respect. On top of that, and solely on principal, what NCAA rules were violated in the series of errors by those involved? (This is an honest question; I have had a tough time reading all of the details, so I do not know on what groups these punishments are being levied)

I feel PSU has been punished plenty by bad press, and the NCAA should not be the association punishing the University any more than what Sandusky has already done. Again, I don't know what NCAA rules were violated. State and Federal laws were violated by University official (not just in the Athletic Dept) and local Police; these are the people that need to be punished.

There will be a stain on the PSU name and reputation for at least a generation, that is a punishment more severe than $60 mil and some football games. The NCAA getting involved is making this a football issue, when it was much more than that, and I only hope the people who did not make sure Sanduskygot his get theirs.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

The punishment has been handed out, by the NCAA, and I believe it is fair...

I completely agree that it is fair, and in my opinion is a much more appropriate punishment than the death penalty that I was previously in favor of. Besides the fact that the punishment handed down today is very close to being on par with the death penalty, one of the things I really like about it is the NCAA minimized the impact to the innocent victims, which would be the PSU players. That plus some things will be done to benefit abused kids.

Mark Emmert did a great job explaining the rationale and the purpose of the punishment, emphasizing that protecting children and their rights is far more important than any any football program. Bingo! Educators, administrators, and boosters across the nation better take note and make sure they have a thorough understanding of the laws and requirements involving suspected abuse. And I do mean suspected. Proof of abuse is not required to report it. It only needs to be suspected. And if suspected, it is required by law to report it to CPS or police.

 

[Alpe d'Huez]

As a PSU alum, not sure how to feel about the rulings handed down today.

I can understand your frustration, but I still believe the NCAA (and Big Ten) made the right call. I have said as you did before, that I am an advocate of punishing most of all the people who commit the crime. But this is probably the most horrific story in this history of the NCAA. As we noted in this thread numerous times, the athletic program, and specifically football, became a giant cash cow for numerous people at PSU, many of whom were living an incredible life of privilege. During this time, while the board of trustees was hoodwinked by many, they also were so passive, and had such a hand's off approach, it was one of the many roots of harm done here. Not the root, but one of them. And not all trustees. But one of the things this penalty seeks to accomplish is to send a hard message to all other schools, which include the trustees, that you can't just stand by and assume everything is fine. If there is any suspicion of child abuse at all, even one hint of it, you must be very proactive and seek the truth above all else. No one at PSU did this. Yes, the people most guilty of this are all caught and being punished or shamed into oblivion, and rightfully so. But this is a case bigger than that. It can't be a situation where anyone of high authority at a major college can look at this and say "I'm glad I wasn't involved" or "someone else is supposed to be taking care of that, not me". You can't say that anymore, and you can't think that way. You have to keep yourself aware, if not directly involved.

I think what is most telling of all is that President Rodney Erickson and football coach Bill O'Brien have said they support the decision. Sadly what's perhaps equally telling are some of the alumni and trustees wished Erickson would have fought it harder, even though it's reported that he was able to stave off some in the NCAA high committee seeking a fine to be $100m, plus the death penalty. It should be noted that trustee chair Karen Peetz and a few other trustee leaders were briefed by Erickson and didn't resist him, or the NCAA.

If you look at it from another perspective, the most likely damage done to the average student/fan of PSU is that their football program isn't going to be very good for some years. You're going to lose a lot of games you used to win, and during that time you're not going to get as many top flight HS players to come there, and some of the facilities are going to age a little. You're also going to have to live with the shame and sigma of Sandusky and the others. That's a small price to pay.

If I were a PSU alum, I would accept this. I would also be very angry at Sandusky and the others who enabled him. Very angry. And I would be angry at the board of trustees. But I would also still be proud of what I personally accomplished there in the same breath. And if I had to explain to people that PSU is an enormous school, and definitely not just a football factory, then I'd welcome that. But that's just me.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

I can understand your frustration, but I still believe the NCAA (and Big Ten) made the right call. ...

I don't know if the NCAA should have even been involved. Crimes were commited, not NCAA rules violations. This was not a football issue, it was a criminal issue.

Sandusky - in Jail

Curley/Schultz - Facing criminal/civil trials

Spanier - Potentially facing criminal/civil trial

Paterno - If not passed, more than likely facing civil suit

The University - Will be facing civil suits of potentially 9 figures in damages

The above is are punishments I can accept, because the institution failed these victims. I don't see why the NCAA is involved. They make it about football and not the victims of these heinous acts.

Be that as it may, sanctions were handed down; the aspect of which I am most upset about is the loss of scholarships. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, that those lost scholarhips are not transferrable to another sport, or even the academic sector. So, in a country where more and more students are graduating with $40,000 of debt, 20-30 more students will lose an opportunity at graduating debt free. The NCAA should stop taking scholarships from schools, and instead force them to place those scholarships elsewhere. They could've set a great precedent, but failed IMO.

 

[Steve H.]

I don't know if the NCAA should have even been involved. Crimes were commited, not NCAA rules violations. This was not a football issue, it was a criminal issue.

Sandusky - in Jail

Curley/Schultz - Facing criminal/civil trials

Spanier - Potentially facing criminal/civil trial

Paterno - If not passed, more than likely facing civil suit

The University - Will be facing civil suits of potentially 9 figures in damages

The above is are punishments I can accept, because the institution failed these victims. I don't see why the NCAA is involved. They make it about football and not the victims of these heinous acts.

Be that as it may, sanctions were handed down; the aspect of which I am most upset about is the loss of scholarships. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, that those lost scholarhips are not transferrable to another sport, or even the academic sector. So, in a country where more and more students are graduating with $40,000 of debt, 20-30 more students will lose an opportunity at graduating debt free. The NCAA should stop taking scholarships from schools, and instead force them to place those scholarships elsewhere. They could've set a great precedent, but failed IMO.

I believe there is no reason PSU would have to follow anything the NCAA says. As far as I know, they have no legal jurisdiction and only act with the permission of those who are members. If PSU doesn't like the rules, maybe they should have stayed out of the NCAA.
As far as money, well the football program is worth little when compared to other areas of the college.


snip

Note that FT reports that PSU receives 9 times more revenue from federal research grants than from its football program. Think that might explain the whitewash of the Mann investigation?

If they’re willing to go to great lengths to cover-up children being raped in the locker-room for $50 million, how much greater lengths would they be willing to go to for $450 million?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6931fd44-0cb6-11e1-a45b-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1dVPcAxDS

“Penn State’s football programme contributes about 2 per cent of revenues. Additional large contributors are tuition and other student-based revenue at 40 per cent and federal research grants at 19 per cent. The university receives 7 per cent of its operating revenue from the state government of Pennsylvania.”

I suggest you investigate Michael Mann and "Climategate" or maybe a former PSU professor Antonio Lasaga.

 

[Bala Verde]

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...ing-may-be-cut-after-sex-abuse-sanctions.html

Pennsylvania State University faces a credit-rating downgrade from Moody’s Investors Service following sanctions resulting from the child-sex-abuse case involving former assistant football coach Jerry Sandusky.
Moody’s is reviewing the university’s “management and governance,” which it said in a press release today appear weak based on recent reports and investigations. The company said it will also monitor student applications and fundraising, which it said remained strong.
Penn State has about $1 billion of bonds, which are rated Aa1 by New York-based Moody’s, the second-highest grade. The review will be concluded in 90 days, the company said.

 

[ChrisE]

I don't know if the NCAA should have even been involved. Crimes were commited, not NCAA rules violations. This was not a football issue, it was a criminal issue.

Sandusky - in Jail

Curley/Schultz - Facing criminal/civil trials

Spanier - Potentially facing criminal/civil trial

Paterno - If not passed, more than likely facing civil suit

The University - Will be facing civil suits of potentially 9 figures in damages

The above is are punishments I can accept, because the institution failed these victims. I don't see why the NCAA is involved. They make it about football and not the victims of these heinous acts.

Be that as it may, sanctions were handed down; the aspect of which I am most upset about is the loss of scholarships. It is my understanding, and I could be wrong on this, that those lost scholarhips are not transferrable to another sport, or even the academic sector. So, in a country where more and more students are graduating with $40,000 of debt, 20-30 more students will lose an opportunity at graduating debt free. The NCAA should stop taking scholarships from schools, and instead force them to place those scholarships elsewhere. They could've set a great precedent, but failed IMO.

This is wrong on many levels.

This is a "football issue", along with criminal. The reason it was covered up in the first place was to preserve the prestige of the football program, thus influencing recruiting. They did so thinking that if it hit the media that a pedophile was running around the showers of PSU then it may effect recruiting, thus wins. It was cheating, plain and simple.

The football players on scholarships are free to transfer elsewhere, and I am sure whereever they transferred then that school would be afforded exceptions to exceeding their scholarship limits. There are also scholarships elsewhere, and I am sure these 80 or so scholarships that are "lost" will not cripple the society.

Besides, I am not sure if you are serious about these "students" now losing the chance to graduate, even if my above paragraph were not true. Most could give a crap about that; they want to play football and along with your opinion this further emphasizes how far things are out of whack in this society. Yeah, I am sure the engineering school at PSU will take a hit because of this.

The $ amount fined is about 1 year of revenue from the football program. Big deal. The forfeitted wins mean nothing and were done only to slap Paterno after the fact. Who cares. They will still play in the big ten, and I doubt very seriously any will transfer.

Not to paint with a large brush, but the pimple faced punks flipping cars and protecting statues of pedophile enablers, and cultish PSU football idiots that are whining now don't deserve any sympathy. And the holier-than-thou persona that Paterno and PSU have always exhibited, exemplified by the halo over this enabler, make me want to puke.

This penalty, while severe, was not enough. If the "death penalty" is ever to be used, and it is not used for this, then WTF should it be used for? For severe issues like tattoos and buying a kid a meal???? Get real.

This penalty misses the point. Yes, there would have been collateral damage and others would be hurt by the death penalty, but you can say that about any perpetrator of a crime. If I commit a crime tomorrow, my family members will be affected. Does that mean I should not be punished? Of course not. Sometimes innocent people get caught up in things out of their control. Welcome to life.

As a side note maybe it would shine a light on so many peoples lives depending upon something so trivial and meaningless as sport, and would thus further expose how out of whack society is.

 

[on3m@n@rmy]

I feel sorry for the PSU students and alums. I really do because they are innocent victims. But I feel 1,000,000 times more sorry for the victimized kids. Four years and a decade to recover is nothing compared to a lifetime living with the pain caused by the hell the kids went through. Laws did not seem to deter JoPa and Sandusky. At least the NCAA decision will place more incentive on institutions to do the right things when needed.

 

[Merckx index]

I guess I just don’t get it. All the people who were the source of the problem at Penn State are gone. The only people left to punish are those who did not contribute to the problem. By saying it is a university wide problem, the NCAA is in effect saying all the players, students, staff, etc., were complicit in the crime and deserve to be punished. Because they are the only ones who will be punished.

If it is valid because it is a “football issue”, as Chris maintains, then I guess the logic is that all the people at Penn State benefited from the building up of a program by a criminal, so they have to lose all those benefits. The lesson is very clear here. If you are a member of a university, it is incumbent on you to keep an eye on everything anyone in the community does, because if someone in that community who provides a benefit for others is found to have committed a crime, you will lose all those benefits. You can never count on anything existing at the university, it can be removed instantly if a person responsible for it commits a crime.

The New Orleans Saints situation offers a stunning contrast. Here is a case where all or most of the players really were complicit in the crimes. I think they all knew what was going on.. But would there ever be a death penalty for an NFL team, or a ban from postseason play? Of course not. Too much money would be lost.

OK, so some of you will say trying to maim other players is not comparable to pedophilia. Suppose Sean Peyton had done what Paterno did. What would have happened? He would have been fired and maybe gone to jail. Would there have been any punishment for the Saints team? Of course not. Mostly because, for all the self-righteous indignation at the horror of the crime, too much money would be at stake in not allowing an NFL team to play. Not just for the Saints franchise, but for the rest of the NFL. That alone would ensure that there would never be a death penalty. But it would also be validly rationalized by pointing out that other members of the team did not commit the crime, and did not deserve to be punished.

The more I see the NCAA in action, the more screwed up it appears to me. The whole notion of making an entire institution pay for the crimes committed by a few is nuts. There is no precedent for this in business, government, or any other area of life AFAIK. I noted the example of Nixon before. Should any programs that benefited Americans that were begun when he was in office be terminated, on the grounds that he was a criminal and covered up his crimes so that he could continue to be President?

 

[ChrisE]

MI, before I go into this with you please define whether or not the "death penalty" in college athletics is justified. Apparently this doesn't reach that point, so if you do think it is justified then please give examples where it is.

Lookee here.

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_...ickson-said-school-faced-4-year-death-penalty

What a deal. 4 years death penalty or this ultimate farce. We should drop those PSU negotiators into Palestine and negotiate an end to all that BS.

 

[Steve H.]

I believe the NCAA was certainly looking out for their own interests. Where were they when all this was going on over all these years? Now they can act like the UCI and say everything is ok, nothing more to see here, we can all go back to business as usual.
That being said, it's clear PSU negotiated the penalties with the NCAA who probably had input from other colleges as well. This case is far from over and it may be there are even worse allegations to be corroborated. Rodney Ericson has some explaining to do on signing off on Sandusky's retirement package and Gary Shultz and athletic director Tim Curley still have to have their day in court not to mention what has yet to be revealed in the pending civil cases.
Did you know there are now at least 45 alleged victims extending into the 1970's?
The students, alumni and people of State College have been deeply affected by this. While they are ignorant(of the crimes) they are not the victims, all those young boys who were raped are the real victims.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

I believe the NCAA was certainly looking out for their own interests. Where were they when all this was going on over all these years? Now they can act like the UCI and say everything is ok, nothing more to see here, we can all go back to business as usual.
That being said, it's clear PSU negotiated the penalties with the NCAA who probably had input from other colleges as well. This case is far from over and it may be there are even worse allegations to be corroborated. Rodney Ericson has some explaining to do on signing off on Sandusky's retirement package and Gary Shultz and athletic director Tim Curley still have to have their day in court not to mention what has yet to be revealed in the pending civil cases.
Did you know there are now at least 45 alleged victims extending into the 1970's?
The students, alumni and people of State College have been deeply affected by this. While they are ignorant(of the crimes) they are not the victims, all those young boys who were raped are the real victims.

I did not see this. I know it was 45 counts of which Sandusky was convicted.

 

[US Patent Exploding Cyclist]

I still don't see why/how the NCAA got involved, at least at this point in time. Not to mention how they got away with not following their own guidelines for hearings/sanctions.

Re: NCAA involvement

1) There are still criminal and civil cases pending. The results of these trials/hearings trump the findings in the Freeh Report, on which the NCAA based their sanctions. Moreover, State/Federal Courts > NCAA. They showed some balls handing down punishment at this point. What will happen if all/some parties involved are found to be innocent? Highly unlikely, yes, but still a possibility. Not saying punishment is unwarrented, just saying this is the wrong time.

2) No NCAA rules were violated, so how can they pass along sanctions? I still don't understand the logic in this. Not to mention that the guidelines that are in place for sanctions were not followed even remotely. I have a big issue with this because everyone is entitled to due process, that was not afforded in this case.

Re: Sanctions

1) $60 mil to be paid to charities helping the victims of child abuse. I have no problem with the spirit of this sanction.

2) 112 wins removed from records from 1998-2011. I understand this sanction as the NCAA wants to keep Paterno off the top of the list. He's dead, who cares?

3)Scholarships reduced from 85 to 65 for football team for next four years. This is the only sanction I have issue with. I have no problem removing scholarships for the football program, but don't take away an opportunity for 20 more students to have a free education. Move them to another sport; if there is a competitive balance issue with that, make the school give full scholarships to 20 students.

Chris poo poo'd this in my original post, but from personal experience, having a free college education, and graduating without debt to worry about, has afforded me and my wife more options at this point in our lives. Car purchase - possible because we had no debt. Home purchase - possible because we had no debt. Family planning (kid) easier because we entered the work force with NO DEBT and were able to SAVE our earnings to prepare for a kid. These are major life decisions that were possible because of our free educations.

Re: NCAA Punishments in general

An issue a lot of people have is that the NCAA never penalizes the offending parties.

Solution: Lifetime bans for offending parties

Players - Will no longer be able to play NCAA sports. Will not be allowed to have a career in any way tied to the NCAA.

Officials/Coaches/Administrators- Will not be allowed to have a career in any way tied to the NCAA.

In the above scenarios, people like Pete Carroll would not be able to return to the NCAA when he fails in the NFL. Reggie Bush couldn't coach at USC, John Calipari would not be able to get the Kentucky job after the Derrick Rose incident, don't try to tell me he didn't know about the SAT test.

If the NCAA could get the professional sports leagues to sign on to an agreement to not hire these people (will never happen but has it even been tried?), then you have a big incentive to toe the line.

On top of all of the above, the NCAA should have waited to get involved, because right now the victims of the crimes are who matter. No amount of money can undo those horrible crimes, but the media storm centered around a football team, and how they feel wronged, cannot help these people heal.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be clear with what I meant.

 

[ChrisE]

I still don't see why/how the NCAA got involved, at least at this point in time. Not to mention how they got away with not following their own guidelines for hearings/sanctions.

Re: NCAA involvement

1) There are still criminal and civil cases pending. The results of these trials/hearings trump the findings in the Freeh Report, on which the NCAA based their sanctions. Moreover, State/Federal Courts > NCAA. They showed some balls handing down punishment at this point. What will happen if all/some parties involved are found to be innocent? Highly unlikely, yes, but still a possibility. Not saying punishment is unwarrented, just saying this is the wrong time.

2) No NCAA rules were violated, so how can they pass along sanctions? I still don't understand the logic in this. Not to mention that the guidelines that are in place for sanctions were not followed even remotely. I have a big issue with this because everyone is entitled to due process, that was not afforded in this case.

Re: Sanctions

1) $60 mil to be paid to charities helping the victims of child abuse. I have no problem with the spirit of this sanction.

2) 112 wins removed from records from 1998-2011. I understand this sanction as the NCAA wants to keep Paterno off the top of the list. He's dead, who cares?

3)Scholarships reduced from 85 to 65 for football team for next four years. This is the only sanction I have issue with. I have no problem removing scholarships for the football program, but don't take away an opportunity for 20 more students to have a free education. Move them to another sport; if there is a competitive balance issue with that, make the school give full scholarships to 20 students.

Chris poo poo'd this in my original post, but from personal experience, having a free college education, and graduating without debt to worry about, has afforded me and my wife more options at this point in our lives. Car purchase - possible because we had no debt. Home purchase - possible because we had no debt. Family planning (kid) easier because we entered the work force with NO DEBT and were able to SAVE our earnings to prepare for a kid. These are major life decisions that were possible because of our free educations.

Re: NCAA Punishments in general

An issue a lot of people have is that the NCAA never penalizes the offending parties.

Solution: Lifetime bans for offending parties

Players - Will no longer be able to play NCAA sports. Will not be allowed to have a career in any way tied to the NCAA.

Officials/Coaches/Administrators- Will not be allowed to have a career in any way tied to the NCAA.

In the above scenarios, people like Pete Carroll would not be able to return to the NCAA when he fails in the NFL. Reggie Bush couldn't coach at USC, John Calipari would not be able to get the Kentucky job after the Derrick Rose incident, don't try to tell me he didn't know about the SAT test.

If the NCAA could get the professional sports leagues to sign on to an agreement to not hire these people (will never happen but has it even been tried?), then you have a big incentive to toe the line.

On top of all of the above, the NCAA should have waited to get involved, because right now the victims of the crimes are who matter. No amount of money can undo those horrible crimes, but the media storm centered around a football team, and how they feel wronged, cannot help these people heal.

Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to be clear with what I meant.

There is a caveat in the NCAA rules about "institutional control", kinda like a catch-all category. There cannot be a specific rule about every remote possible act by an institution. Just because there is not specific NCAA rule against harboring a pedophile so it will not effect recruting/image, does not mean the NCAA should not be involved. Besides, I showed upthread how the football team did benefit by the cover up, so it is a football issue.

For scholarships, I follow you and agree with your point, in general about the opportunities afforded by scholarships. I was commenting on the fact that alot (most?) of these football players could care less about that. What is the graduation rate of college football players? 80 less scholarships, and the resulting less than 80 useful degrees that come out of that is not on my radar. The reduction of scholarships is a punishment to reduce the gene pool at PSU of quality football players. Again, some innocents will now not have a free education but that is life. This punishment is the most effective of what was handed down, and thus is necessary IMO.

The problem with your scenario about transferring scholarships to other sports is that there are limits in those sports as well. You cannot have PSU having more sholarships in those sports than other D1 schools.

The bigger picture here is what is appropriate punishment for an "entity". There is incentive not to break rules and laws due to both individual punishment and threat of institutional collateral damage. As I said upthread, innocent people get caught up in things like this all the time. This is life, and culture is a big component of deterrence. A good example is BP....should the people directly responsible be the only ones that are punished, or were the fines imposed upon them OK? What about other damages when "entities" do wrong to others? Where do we draw the line on the extent of punishment to entities when people within them do wrong, perhaps due to culture of that entity?

The culture at PSU and major college sports in general sux IMO. Instead of the focus being on the victims here, we have large groups of people rioting over things that are not important. You yourself are losing the forest in the trees by nitpicking the details, and trying to find ways why the NCAA should not be involved in this issue that is obviously a sports issue. Look at the spewage coming from the players, which BTW as I predicted upthread most will not be jumping ship. They don't get it.

The culture will not change by putting Sandusky in jail and having a statue torn down, or fines that PSU will hardly feel or meaningless forfeitures. This happened because the culture of college athletics, not just at PSU, fuels the temptation to do such things as this and that culture goes beyond the few bad apples that are being individually punished.

College is about education, not sports, and others tied to this sport being innocently punished because of such an act by its leaders is something that I can't take into too much account here, though I am sympathetic.

The NCAA is in a bind because it needs college to be about sports or it doesn't exist. There is no doubt in my mind that PSU got leniency because of their brand and importance in the college sports landscape. There is no doubt in my mind if it was a smaller college that this occured in, or if a smaller college is caught committing other violations, the death penalty would be used. Is what SMU did more egregious than this?

My question remains...what is the act that the death penalty should be used in college sports? If harboring a pedophile to not tarnish the name of a university, to directly benefit it's football program, does not rise to that level then what does?