Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="yalikePSU, post: 725856, member: 3678"] One must also take into account the type of fans that will come onto opposing teams' message boards and carry out arguments with their fans. They don't exactly represent the entire fanbase. Do some of them make good points? Yes, I don't want to discredit any good points they are making. But some of my fellow PSU fans/alums that are visiting here appear to be a little misguided in their strategy. I can certainly sympathize with their frustration, though, and that can lead some to get pretty defensive of the school they love. Some points on the scandal: - Many in the public believe that Joe and the administration knew Sandusky was abusing children and did nothing about it. Even the Freeh Report fails to come to this precise conclusion. Their supposition is based purely on one incident (whatever McQueary witnessed in 2001) and the aftermath. If this incident was meant to be covered up, it would be an odd decision to notify council and the head of the children's charity Sandusky founded. It is still unclear what McQueary told his bosses (after initially telling Joe, he was out of the loop, as it was not a matter involving a member of hist staff). If it was just "horseplay," as administration officials allege, that changes a lot. If he didn't even see the child (which the alleged victim claims, if you believe that person is the victim), then all bets are off. - There was an earlier incident in 1998 where Sandusky admitted showering with a young boy. The police were brought in. A full investigation was undertaken, and no charges were filed. University police and officials knew about this, but it's not clear whether Paterno knew. In any case, this again does not sound like a cover-up. - Was the situation mishandled? Were mistakes made? There is little doubt the answer to those questions is "yes." Is there any evidence of a deliberate cover-up? Actually, there is zero real evidence of this. In fact, some of the above is evidence to the contrary. - Onto NCAA punishment: Were any NCAA rules broken? No. Did they need to take action? I think, considering the public's lust for blood, both PSU and the NCAA knew something had to be done. That led to the consent decree which handed out the harshest sanctions in the history of the organization, with the possible exception of SMU. If you think the scholarship reductions were the worst of it, you're missing the $60 million PSU is paying to charities, the bowl money and Big Ten share of bowl money that they've given up. - Many of you feel that the culture of PSU football fans was unique, but I beg to differ there. This could have happened anywhere, whether or not there was a large football following. But look to Eugene, LA, Miami or Chapel Hill, and you'll see plenty of actual cheating that has received little or no punishment. That can be frustrating for PSU fans. - Outside of the sanctions, PSU is paying (at least) $30 million more to victims and their families without fighting these lawsuits in court. They've already adopted over 100 recommendations in the Freeh Report to help ensure this never happens again. And the leadership role they are taking in the field of child abuse prevention and community outreach is nothing short of commendable. There are certainly lessons that were learned, and they are not lost on most PSU football fans. Say, anyone want to talk football? Good luck on Saturday, and may the better team win. I hope it's PSU, and I hope it's okay that I root for them. Let's Go State! [/QUOTE]

Verification: What is a Syracuse fan's favorite color?