PSU: About football or not?

[Townie72]

So a football program that allows alums to attend practice or to use the weight room should be penalized when that alum commits a crime that does not involve a football player or coach or administrator?

I know that viscerally your position feels right, but when you think it is thought through completely, one has to conclude that by 2001 this was really not a football program matter. It was a campus/administration matter. I don't think the FB program can or should be singled out by the NCAA.

Recall that Sandusky was not convicted of a crime for whatever McQuerry saw that day in the football facility 2001. I think some of his P e d o p h I l I aoccured at a high school if I recall correctly. Should the administrators at that school be punished.

Should Sandusky's wife be punished given that many of the attacks occurred in her home?

I think you have to be careful when you start calling for others to be punished.

I'm with you on this.

Where do you draw the lines? What are the principles here? How does this relate to the NCAA's charter?

It's infuriating to some that the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction. They are trying to figure out a way that PSU can be punished by everybody. The NCAA. The State of Pennsylvania. The B1G. The ASPCA. PETA.

I don't have a problem with any of it, I guess. But we need to be careful what precedents we set here and how far we stretch the principles.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

But, lets deal with your hypo. If the associate men's BB coach were caught molesting a child and no action was taken, would the Penn State Football program be subject to punishment?

I would be interested in your answer.

Please. This has nothing to do with what "program" gets punished. If the women's rifle team coach is caught having sex with a minor, and then covering it up, I think you would be extremely naive if you didn't expect the NCAA to address it.

I'm not calling for PSU's women's basketball to be addressed by the NCAA here.

 

[OrangePA]

Please. This has nothing to do with what "program" gets punished. If the women's rifle team coach is caught having sex with a minor, and then covering it up, I think you would be extremely naive if you didn't expect the NCAA to address it.

I'm not calling for PSU's women's basketball to be addressed by the NCAA here.

That's the issue.

Which program gets punished?

Or, how is the punishment assigned?

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over the University's non-athletic functions. So, how does the NCAA apply punishment?

That's exactly the point.

 

[Crusty]

Your hypo has nothing to do with what I have posted.

I am dealing with Jerry Sandusky, who in 2001 had no relationship with the Penn State Football Program - he was not an assistant coach, much less the associate head coach.

And, my point deals with NCAA punishment after the fact.

So, I'm not really sure what point you're trying make with respect to NCAA punishment.

But, lets deal with your hypo. If the associate men's BB coach were caught molesting a child and no action was taken, would the Penn State Football program be subject to punishment?

I would be interested in your answer.

Your example is not on point. Nobody is saying that the corollary - that PSU BB program should be penalized for the Paterno scandal - is true. This is a football issue and the football program should suffer whatever punishment comes down.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

That's the issue.

Which program gets punished?

Or, how is the punishment assigned?

The NCAA has no jurisdiction over the University's non-athletic functions. So, how does the NCAA apply punishment?K

That's exactly the point.

How about we start with the program involved?

 

[kingtidge]

I'm with you on this.

Where do you draw the lines? What are the principles here? How does this relate to the NCAA's charter?

It's infuriating to some that the NCAA doesn't have jurisdiction. They are trying to figure out a way that PSU can be punished by everybody. The NCAA. The State of Pennsylvania. The B1G. The ASPCA. PETA.

I don't have a problem with any of it, I guess. But we need to be careful what precedents we set here and how far we stretch the principles.

If you are talking the NCAA's LOI tenets... I think there is a fairly persuasive argument to be made.

At the core is this:

Paterno, as tenured head football coach, had more power in school athletic matters than his 'supposed' superiors (A.D. , Chancellor, etc.)

He called the shots. He was the king on the throne.

Which, of course, was not the official power structure hierachy based on employment position... The coach reports to the A.D., the A.D. to the chancellor, etc.

I would argue that because this power triangle was inverted behind the scenes with JoPa on top, it represents a significant Loss of Institutional Control. And this loss of control lead to a series of poor, immoral and criminal decisions that effectively enabled a child sex predator to victimize children with PSU's knowledge and in their facilities for over a decade.

Can it be proven beyond shadow of a doubt? Probably not. But the NCAA will do what they want where sanctions are concerned and this is the worst athletic scandal in NCAA history.

If you think the football program will not be sanctioned in some significant way, I think you are sorely mistaken.

 

[OrangePA]

How about we start with the program involved?

Okay.

In 2001 what program was involved?

Which Penn State coach or administrator committed a crime?

Was it a football coach? No.

Was it a basketball coach? No.

Was it a field hockey coach? No.

My understanding is that a former football coach who had not worked for the University in that capacity for about three years was accused of committing a crime on the school premises. And eventually he was acquitted of that alleged crime.

So, which program was "involved" in whatever "crime" you are referencing?

 

[OrangePA]

Your example is not on point. Nobody is saying that the corollary - that PSU BB program should be penalized for the Paterno scandal - is true. This is a football issue and the football program should suffer whatever punishment comes down.

That's where I think you're wrong.

It's easy to say that this is a "football" issue.

But that actions that occurred on school premises in 2001, for which Sandusky was acquitted, did not involve the football program.

He was not a football coach or administrator. He was a private citizen who was given access to the school premises by the school administrators.

Suppose Sandusky had committed the act in the BB arena, would you then say that this was a BB issue?

I don't think it's as easy as some suggest.

 

[CaliCuse]

A school, their football program and their leaders placed football and their Penn State Brand above protecting kids from being raped by one of their coaches. How anyone can think that this doesn't deserve shutting down the program is beyond me. The school board should do it on their own if they are truly concerned about preventing this from ever happening again. If not, the NCAA should do it for them. Period.

The problem originated by the top officials of Penn State placing the football program ahead of chidren being raped for sure. We know this as fact but the players there now shouldn't be made to suffer because o the that were in charge ,not even Paterno's transgressions. Let them play and be a reminder to the world of what Penn State stands for into the foreseeable future.

 

[Townie72]

If you are talking the NCAA's LOI tenets... I think there is a fairly persuasive argument to be made.

At the core is this:

Paterno, as tenured head football coach, had more power in school athletic matters than his 'supposed' superiors (A.D. , Chancellor, etc.)

He called the shots. He was the king on the throne.

Which, of course, was not the official power structure hierachy based on employment position... The coach reports to the A.D., the A.D. to the chancellor, etc.

I would argue that because this power triangle was inverted behind the scenes with JoPa on top, it represents a significant Loss of Institutional Control. And this loss of control lead to a series of poor, immoral and criminal decisions that effectively enabled a child sex predator to victimize children with PSU's knowledge and in their facilities for over a decade.

Can it be proven beyond shadow of a doubt? Probably not. But the NCAA will do what they want where sanctions are concerned and this is the worst athletic scandal in NCAA history.

If you think the football program will not be sanctioned in some significant way, I think you are sorely mistaken.

Let me be clear ... I don't care what happens to PSU football. I have believed that they have put up a phony, almost nauseating, front of purity since Rip Engel left and Paterno took over.

But at the same time I think there's a lot of confusion about what the NCAA can and will do. Most of the people seem to believe tht the NCAA is some kind of quasi-government agency that runs things. They don't understand that th NCAA answers only to the University presidents.

I think what they will do is appoint committees and do studies into the limits of their charter and all sorts of bureaucratic stuff and play "stall ball". And the scandal will disappear off the front page. And in the end the NCAA will huff and puff and do little.

This is the same NCAA who has allowed college football to get to its current point. College football is a great sport, but at the same time it's a compete joke. A significant proportion of the kids playing it are barely literate and are getting little out of the college classes they attend.This is the NCAA that's going to fix the problems?

The major universities can just leave the NCAA if they don't like what the NCAA does. And that's been discussed many times.

The NCAA isn't going to do anything to endanger the cash cow that football represents to these schools. Whatever they do to Penn State, they have to do to others. And that's what will guide their eventual actions ... if any.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

Okay.

In 2001 what program was involved?

Which Penn State coach or administrator committed a crime?

Was it a football coach? No.

So, which program was "involved" in whatever "crime" you are referencing?

1. Football

2. Joe Paterno

3. Yes

4. Football

Please go read the Freeh Report. Executive summary, pages 15-16. I think it will give you some guidance regarding Coach Paterno and the idea to cover up the 2001 incident. Here's what it said re: Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and PATERNO:

"They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001."

 

[rrlbees]

So a football program that allows alums to attend practice or to use the weight room should be penalized when that alum commits a crime that does not involve a football player or coach or administrator?

I know that viscerally your position feels right, but when you think it through completely, one has to conclude that by 2001 this was really not a football program matter. It was a campus/administration matter. I don't think the FB program can or should be singled out by the NCAA.

Recall that Sandusky was not convicted of a crime for whatever McQuerry saw that day in the football facility 2001. I think some of his P e d o p h I l I aoccured at a high school if I recall correctly. Should the administrators at that school be punished.

Should Sandusky's wife be punished given that many of the attacks occurred in her home?

I think you have to be careful when you start calling for others to be punished.

The crime did involve a football coach. His name is Joe Paterno. As Mark May said so eloquently, "Morally, Joe Paterno is as guilty as Sandusky".

You see, covering something up like this is a crime. It became a football coach and admin matter because they MADE themselves part of it.

And the only reason Sandusky was not convicted of that one crime McQueery saw is because the kid never came forward. Nobody even knew who to contact because you see, nobody gave a damn about the kid and never tried to find out who he was. There are some that think it possible he may have even killed himself, because those things do happen in situations like these.

Btw, yes Sandusky's wife should ne charged with failure to report a crime. Everyone who had any knowledge over those 2 decades should be.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[ithacat]

So the idea is that the NCAA start to punish schools based on the crimes committed by coaches and the failure of coaches to report criminal behavior of others --- coaches and non-coaches --- to authorities?

That's what is being suggested here

How far down does this extend? Just felonies? Misdemeanors? Traffic offenses?

If a coach has abuses pain killers, is the program punished? What about the coaches that fail to report their fellow coaches for this illegal behavior? How should the NCAA be involved in this?

If one of the coaches is caught screwing another coach's wife ... clearly a moral failing ... does the NCAA sanction the school.

Penn State's recruiting advantage gained by not reporting this is a real stretch.

This is just my opinion. But, if the NCAA does not issue a death penalty over this then they're worthless. If they do not issue such then they're saying football is more important than the truth; they're saying football is more important than the law; they're saying football is more important then the University; they're saying that football is more important than protecting innocent children from being raped. The cover up is what changes this for the NCAA. Again, just my opinion.

 

[rrlbees]

Your hypo has nothing to do with what I have posted.

I am dealing with Jerry Sandusky, who in 2001 had no relationship with the Penn State Football program.

My god man. He had an office in the football facilities, he had unfettered use of the football facilities, he brought his prey to the facilities.

And you keep talking like this started im 2001 after he was forced to resign. It started WHILE he was a coach. It may have started as early as the 70's when he started 2nd mile.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangePA]

The crime did involve a football coach. His name is Joe Paterno. As Mark May said so eloquently, "Morally, Joe Paterno is as guilty as Sandusky".

You see, covering something up like this is a crime. It became a football coach and admin matter because they MADE themselves part of it.

And the only reason Sandusky was not convicted of that one crime McQueery saw is because the kid never came forward. Nobody even knew who to contact because you see, nobody gave a damn about the lodging and never tried to find out who he was. There are some that think it possible he may have even killed himself, because those things do happen in situations like these.

Btw, yes Sandusky's wife should ne charged with failure to report a crime. Everyone who had any knowledge over those 2 decades should be.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Bees - Are you sure you're not a lawyer?

Or, do you just play one online?

Joe Paterno was never charged with a crime.

The Penn State officials have not been charged with obstruction with justice.

They have been charged with lying to a Grand Jury.

They will be punished - they already have lost their jobs and the school and the citizens of PA - including me - will pay a lot of money to the victims.

I don't see how the NCAA can single out the Football Program.

 

[OrangePA]

My god man. He had an office in the football facilities, he had unfettered use of the football facilities, he brought his prey to the facilities.

And you keep talking like this started im 2001 after he was forced to resign. It started WHILE he was a coach. It may have started as early as the 70's when he started 2nd mile.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

The Freeh report offers no proof that "this began" while he was a coach for Penn State.

And the report makes clear that the May, 1998 incident occurred after Sandusky retired.

Too, there is no evidence that Sandusky was forced to retire by the University.

I am not so sure about him having an office in the football facility but I'm not confident enough to challenge that part of the post. I'll read the report again.

 

[ithacat]

People need to separate the criminal activity of Sandusky & the criminal activity of the cover up. They're two separate, though related, crimes.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

Joe Paterno was never charged with a crime.

He almost certainly would be charged with perjury if he were still alive today. The coverup in 2001 involved McQueary, Sandusky, and the showers in the Lasch building.

 

[Capt. Tuttle]

So the idea is that the NCAA start to punish schools based on the crimes committed by coaches and the failure of coaches to report criminal behavior of others --- coaches and non-coaches --- to authorities?

That's what is being suggested here

How far down does this extend? Just felonies? Misdemeanors? Traffic offenses?

If a coach has abuses pain killers, is the program punished? What about the coaches that fail to report their fellow coaches for this illegal behavior? How should the NCAA be involved in this?

If one of the coaches is caught screwing another coach's wife ... clearly a moral failing ... does the NCAA sanction the school.

Penn State's recruiting advantage gained by not reporting this is a real stretch.

Not the crime, the instititional serial cover up of a danger to the community
Sent from my Vortex using Tapatalk 2

 

[OrangePA]

1. Football

2. Joe Paterno

3. Yes

4. Football

Please go read the Freeh Report. Executive summary, pages 15-16. I think it will give you some guidance regarding Coach Paterno and the idea to cover up the 2001 incident. Here's what it said re: Schultz, Spanier, Curley, and PATERNO:

"They exhibited a striking lack of empathy for Sandusky’s victims by failing to inquire as to their safety and well‐being, especially by not attempting to determine the identity of the child who Sandusky assaulted in the Lasch Building in 2001."

I will re-read the report. I think that's a good idea. I read much of it the day it was published. I do not recall the report indicating that it was Joe Paterno's idea to commence a cover up.

The fact is that Joe Paterno was never charged with a crime.

And, no member of the football staff was charged with a crime. Only two University administrators, and a former football coach who by 2001 had been retired for three years, were charged with crimes. Nobody has been charged with obstruction of justice - only lying to the Grand Jury.

Lack of empathy is a bad thing. I wish more people had empathy.

But lack of empathy is not a crime and not a basis for NCAA sanctions.

I know you want this to be about the football program, but it really wasn't. It was about a twisted man who was a former coach, and few members of the PSU administration that handled a bad situation involving the former employee very, very badly.

 

[Townie72]

He almost certainly would be charged with perjury if he were still alive today. The coverup in 2001 involved McQueary, Sandusky, and the showers in the Lasch building.

We need a posthumous trial. Bring Paterno's corpse into the courtroom standing up in a pine box --- like in the Old West ... and put him in the docket.

Then conduct a trial with press coverage like at the OJ trial and find him guilty.

Punishment should be death by hanging. The corpse would be strung up and allowed to twist in the wind a few days.

That'll get him!

 

[OrangePA]

He almost certainly would be charged with perjury if he were still alive today. The coverup in 2001 involved McQueary, Sandusky, and the showers in the Lasch building.

How do you know that? Have you discussed the case with Joe McGettigan?

I gather you are basing your legal conclusion on the e-mails that others issued that apparently make reference to Paterno. You are not basing that on any verbal statements or written statements made by Paterno that are inconsitent with his grand jury testimony.

It may very well be that Paterno lied to the Grand Jury, but you're making a lot of presumptions with very little fact to back up that possibility. Roger Clemens has shown us that it is not easy to convict somebody of perjury.

And lying to a grand jury does not involve a football operation. Moreover, McQueary was never charged with obstruction of justice or of lying to anybody - nobody has ever suggested that he engaged in any cover up. That's nonsense.

So, basically for you it comes down to the showers at Lasch. Suppose it had been a former BB coach in the showers at Lasch. Would the PSU BB team be subject to NCAA sanctions or would it be the FB team?

I know it feels right to point to the football program, but it is really a university issue, not a football issue.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

How do you know that? Have you discussed the case with Joe McGettigan?

I gather you are basing your legal conclusion on the e-mails that others issued that apparently make reference to Paterno. You are not basing that on any verbal statements or written statements made by Paterno that are inconsitent with his grand jury testimony.

It may very well be that Paterno lied to the Grand Jury, but you're making a lot of presumptions with very little fact to back up that possibility. Roger Clemens has shown us that it is not easy to convict somebody of perjury.

And lying to a grand jury does not involve a football operation. Moreover, McQueary was never charged with obstruction of justice or of lying to anybody - nobody has ever suggested that he engaged in any cover up. That's nonsense.

So, basically for you it comes down to the showers at Lasch. Suppose it had been a former BB coach in the showers at Lasch. Would the PSU BB team be subject to NCAA sanctions or would it be the FB team?

I know it feels right to point to the football program, but it is really a university issue, not a football issue.

Honestly, I can't spend the time to answer your questions again. I don't have the patience. I suggest (again) that you go read the Executive Summary of the Freeh Report.

And for the record, I could give a about which program is involved. I'm more concerned that the abused get their way, and the entities and individuals behind this scandal get their day.

 

[rrlbees]

There is some good stuff in this thread. Summarizing;

You have to be a lawyer to be able to read and have some common sense.

If you don't get caught or turned in for committing a crime, the crime didn't happen.

Covering up a crime is not a crime.

Not reporting child molestation to the proper authorities is not a crime.

Enambling a child molester is not a crime.


If I was doing 75 in a 55 and a cop pulled me over and said "Hey it's Bee's, how ya doing?" and lets me go, it doesn't mean I wasn't speeding.

 

[Orangepace]

I would be interested in your thinking as to why it was not a football issue. It involved a football coach, happened in football facilities and travel facilities and was covered up by the AD and the HC. Joe failed to properly supervise his football program, violated the Clery Act, state law, perjured himself. What exactly would have made it a football issue in your mind?

It was a former football coach and happened in a shower. The reason this isn't a football issue is because this didn't benefit the football team in any way, except for the coverup. Even that has had little to no impact.

Everything you state is a criminal act and Joe himself committed criminal acts, however, that doesn't make it football related. If an assistant coach gets caught stealilng at a supermarket, should the football team lose scholarships? I know that's a different issue, but still same premise. What if this was a professor instead of Sandusky in the football showers.. the school would have the same issues, yet, still not football related.

What would make this a football issue?!?! Seriously? Anything that would benefit the program. If Sandusky was running a prostitution ring that involved selling "services" to the football team, this would be a football issue. The only argument out there that relates this to football is that people claim this was a coverup so that PedSt's program wouldn't be tarnished.. It's tarnished now, but that doesn't really seem to have had an impact (2nd most donations in a year ever and still locking down top notch recruits). So that argument doesn't hold much water, yet it does hold some.

Explain to me why this, in your mind, does relate to football?

I will pre-emptively state that I won't respond to another thread on this topic because I feel like everyone who believes this is a football issue is naive and uneducated.