PSU: About football or not?

[Orangepace]

The entire cover up happened to protect the football program.

And what impact did that coverup coming to light have on the program? Zero! Btw.. not sure how protecting a disturbing human being (as wrong as it is) protects the program. They were protecting the reputation of the school, not the football program.

 

[javadoc]

Bees - Are you sure you're not a lawyer? Or, do you just play one online?

PA, are you sure you're not specialized in the field of Sports Law? One of the articles I linked yesterday had a direct quote from McCann stating that the NCAA has jurisdiction, and cited the sections of the Constitution and Bylaws that apply. Is he wrong?

If Sandusky had been reported and stopped at the first possible reasonable opportunity - even allowing for your hypothetical on the investigator's report that stopped everyone back in 1998 - the NCAA would not have jurisdiction. I think we now have documentary evidence that the people involved considered how the bad publicity would affect the school/program, and chose not to act partly due to such concerns. Bang, it is a football issue.

 

[rrlbees]

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.

A former football coach who committed crimes when he was a football coach who was given cover by the head football coach. Some crimes were committed in football facilities. A pedophile was allowed access to football facilities by the head coach, he was allowed to bring children on campus and attend football practices. Paterno and others very much made this a football issue. Why do people think the only thing that ever happened of the only time anyone had suspicions came after 2001? Why do people ignore the fact that after he was a football coach, he traveled with the team to a bowl game with a child and raped that child in the hotel?

As to naive and uneducated, to each their own I guess.

 

[Orangepace]

Of course it was/is about football. Any individuals arguing to the contrary are delusional...

14 years of ignoring the abuse of children on campus, in the football buildings, at away games, and at bowl games. FOURTEEN years, people.

Seriously? Delusional? How about this.. If I were to walk on campus (and I donate money to Syracuse athletics and attend many of the games, so by all definitions a Booster of the athletic programs) and rape a kid in the Carrier Dome.. Should Syracuse get the death penalty because of my actions?

Seriously. Read a book. Attend some seminars. Get educated. The only thing delusional about me is that I continue to let you live off my paychecks and not force you to take a piss test for your monthly check.[/Quote][/quote]

 

[rrlbees]

And what impact did that coverup coming to light have on the program? Zero! Btw.. not sure how protecting a disturbing human being (as wrong as it is) protects the program. They were protecting the reputation of the school, not the football program.

You must have missed several posts, especially by Consigliere that outlines why they had a recruiting advantage by engaging in a massive coverup to protect the football program and its image. It's not rocketship science.

 

[Orangepace]

Except that even after he was no longer a coach, he still raped kids in football facilities that Paterno, yes Paterno, allowed him access to. He raped kids while on trips to football bowl games. To gain admiration of kids, he brought them to football practices, which Paterno allowed. He sat im the Presidents box for football games, even after the investigation had started and the GJ convened.

See how many times the word football gets in there?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I thought you were more intelligent than that.

 

[Orangepace]

You must have missed several posts, especially by Consigliere that outlines why they had a recruiting advantage by engaging in a massive coverup to protect the football program and its image. It's not rocket science.

Again.. rocket science (fify)... If I rape children in the Carrier Dome.. Should SU pay for my actions?

 

[rrlbees]

PA, are you sure you're not specialized in the field of Sports Law? One of the articles I linked yesterday had a direct quote from McCann stating that the NCAA has jurisdiction, and cited the sections of the Constitution and Bylaws that apply. Is he wrong?

There are a dozen people who keep ignoring that fact and also ignoring what the NCAA has made clear to PedSt. Whether they do anything or not may be up for debate as the NCAA has always had its head up its ass. But they do in fact believe they have jurisdiction and have said so. Of course a few posters will say it is obvious that they don't because some legal beagle told a TV talking head that he doesn't think they do.

 

[rrlbees]

I thought you were more intelligent than that.

What in my post was incorrect?

 

[Orangepace]

A former football coach who committed crimes when he was a football coach who was given cover by the head football coach. Some crimes were committed in football facilities. A pedophile was allowed access to football facilities by the head coach, he was allowed to bring children on campus and attend football practices. Paterno and others very much made this a football issue. Why do people think the only thing that ever happened of the only time anyone had suspicions came after 2001? Why do people ignore the fact that after he was a football coach, he traveled with the team to a bowl game with a child and raped that child in the hotel?

As to naive and uneducated, to each their own I guess.

You stated earlier that comparing this with Fine's case is apples and oranges. The only difference is that Boeheim didn't try to cover anything up. Fine had a sexual relationship with an underaged boy who was a ball boy for the basketball team and travelled with the team to games. How so different?

 

[rrlbees]

Again.. rocket science (fify)... If I rape children in the Carrier Dome.. Should SU pay for my actions?

Yes, if they coverd it up and continued to allow it to happen...for 2 decades, maybe more.

BTW, the "rocketship science" was just a play on a quote by Coach P years ago.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

They were protecting the reputation of the school, not the football program.

If you think for one second that this coverup didn't occur with some degree of concern for the effect on the football program, with Joe Paterno's input, then I really don't know how to respond.

My degree from SU, my MBA from UNC, and my business that I have owned for the last 12 years probably preclude me from grasping all of your arguments.

 

[omniorange]

Again.. rocket science (fify)... If I rape children in the Carrier Dome.. Should SU pay for my actions?

Yes, if they knowingly cover it up and willingly let you continue to use their facilities and bring other potential rape victims on campus - which is clearly what happened here.

Cheers,
Neil

 

[rrlbees]

You stated earlier that comparing this with Fine's case is apples and oranges. The only difference is that Boeheim didn't try to cover anything up. Fine had a sexual relationship with an underaged boy who was a ball boy for the basketball team and travelled with the team to games. How so different?

This shouldn't have to be answered but where we sit right now today, they are apples and oranges. If it ever gets to where PedSt is (which it won't), I'll be saying the same things.

 

[Orangepace]

If you think for one second that this coverup didn't occur with some degree of concern for the effect on the football program, with Joe Paterno's input, then I really don't know how to respond.

My degree from SU, my MBA from UNC, and my business that I have owned for the last 12 years probably preclude me from grasping all of your arguments.

Let's agree to disagree. I'm out of these type of threads. As the OP said, even the media can't come to an agreement over this. I responded simply that we as a fan base can't agree. I'm sure the NCAA will take a position and either act or not on the situation. This isn't a black and white issue and the grey-ness really makes this a tough topic.

 

[Louie&Bouie]

Let's agree to disagree. I'm out of these type of threads. As the OP said, even the media can't come to an agreement over this. I responded simply that we as a fan base can't agree. I'm sure the NCAA will take a position and either act or not on the situation. This isn't a black and white issue and the grey-ness really makes this a tough topic.

Fine by me. As an aside, you should really pay more attention to me than Bees. I have a much higher like ratio, lol...

 

[orange79]

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.

You are correct - it did not indicate it was his idea. But he participated. What don't you get about this? If I'm not mistaken, he was, at that time, Head Football Coach Joe Paterno.

 

[Crusty]

The report shows that Paterno was the freakin originator of the cover-up. He did it to get an advantage (not have a disadvantage) for the football program. Does anybody dispute this?

 

[rrlbees]

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.

Make sure when you re-read the report you pay attention to the other eye witness accounts of sick sexual activity with young boys being committed by Sandusky in the football facilities.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[djcon57]

Make sure when you re-read the report you pay attention to the other eye witness accounts of sick sexual activity with young boys being committed by Sandusky in the football facilities.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

..and the trial notes.

1 Victim stated Tom Bradley saw them together in the showed and refused to leave them alone.

Yeah, he didn't know.

The only way it'd be a football issue for some is if Sandusky was molesting a kid with a headset on while calling in plays.

This is insane. The cover-up was due to FOOTBALL. They felt it would hurt their FOOTBALL program. More kids were molested because they didn't want it to affect their FOOTBALL program.

 

[javadoc]

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.

A quote from the McCann article on SI.com:

There has been much debate as to whether the NCAA should punish Penn State, but it is clearly authorized to do so and could even impose the "death penalty," whereby the Penn State football team would be shut down for at least one year. Articles 2.4 and 10.1 of the NCAA constitution command ethical conduct on behalf of coaches and others associated with athletic programs, and 2.4 expansively states, "These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

This is the opinion of a law prof specializing in sports law. Notice the last sentence, which can make the entire "is it about football?" question (construed narrowly) moot.

Your questions about the application of these Bylaws in other situations are definitely a topic for discussion. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of NCAA investigations and sanctions, but the precedent seems to be that if you discover things and report them yourself, and don't establish a pattern of negligence or willful ignorance in letting things happen repeatedly, you get off free or with minimal sanction. The actions of a single bad actor don't constitute an Institutional problem, but the Institutional response can.

I would ask you a couple questions, before we start to drill down into hypotheticals of lesser scope (as this may well be a case of first impression):

Do you agree that the Bylaws in question establish jurisdiction in this case? If not, what scenario do you envision in which they would apply?

If you think they apply, do you think they should be enforced in this case?

 

[Louie&Bouie]

A quote from the McCann article on SI.com:

There has been much debate as to whether the NCAA should punish Penn State, but it is clearly authorized to do so and could even impose the "death penalty," whereby the Penn State football team would be shut down for at least one year. Articles 2.4 and 10.1 of the NCAA constitution command ethical conduct on behalf of coaches and others associated with athletic programs, and 2.4 expansively states, "These values should be manifest not only in athletics participation, but also in the broad spectrum of activities affecting the athletics program."

This is the opinion of a law prof specializing in sports law. Notice the last sentence, which can make the entire "is it about football?" question (construed narrowly) moot.

Your questions about the application of these Bylaws in other situations are definitely a topic for discussion. I don't claim to be an expert on the history of NCAA investigations and sanctions, but the precedent seems to be that if you discover things and report them yourself, and don't establish a pattern of negligence or willful ignorance in letting things happen repeatedly, you get off free or with minimal sanction. The actions of a single bad actor don't constitute an Institutional problem, but the Institutional response can.

I would ask you a couple questions, before we start to drill down into hypotheticals of lesser scope (as this may well be a case of first impression):

Do you agree that the Bylaws in question establish jurisdiction in this case? If not, what scenario do you envision in which they would apply?

If you think they apply, do you think they should be enforced in this case?

Holy . You sir, sound way smarter than me. And I mean that as a complete compliment.

 

[rrlbees]

..and the trial notes.

1 Victim stated Tom Bradley saw them together in the showed and refused to leave them alone.

Yeah, he didn't know.

The only way it'd be a football issue for some is if Sandusky was molesting a kid with a headset on while calling in plays.

This is insane. The cover-up was due to FOOTBALL. They felt it would hurt their FOOTBALL program. More kids were molested because they didn't want it to affect their FOOTBALL program.

So Bradley also committed a crime and should be in jail. I had missed that part. No wonder they were afraid to make him head coach. Another guy that covered it up and allowed others to be raped.

It was a culture of the football program.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SU2NASA]

Fine by me. As an aside, you should really pay more attention to me than Bees. I have a much higher like ratio, lol...

Once again, the MPL is the WHIP of Syracusefan.com.

Though, I don't think you have enough at-bats to count in the statistics.

 

[rrlbees]

Make sure when you re-read the report you pay attention to the other eye witness accounts of sick sexual activity with young boys being committed by Sandusky in the football facilities.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Btw, after you re-read the report, find testimony in the Sandusky trial and you'll find testimony that was accepted about abuse on campus in 1995. Yes, 1995 while he was coaching. You'll also find in the report reference to Dick Anderson seeing him with boys in the shower.

Stop with the 2001 silliness.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2