PSU: About football or not?

[Moontan]

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

If they'd reported it as soon as they suspected it, then you're right.

The fact that they were covering up the fact that they were actively enabling a pedophile definitely did give them an advantage.

How many families would allow their football playing sons to enroll at a school that was known to harbor pedophile coaches? If your answer is much greater than zero then I think you're out of touch with reality... even "Happy Valley" (Jerry gives a different ring to that name, doesn't he?) reality.

 

[Townie72]

If they'd reported it as soon as they suspected it, then you're right.

The fact that they were covering up the fact that they were actively enabling a pedophile definitely did give them an advantage.

How many families would allow their football playing sons to enroll at a school that was known to harbor pedophile coaches? If your answer is much greater than zero then I think you're out of touch with reality... even "Happy Valley" (Jerry gives a different ring to that name, doesn't he?) reality.

So all programs when recruiting someone must disclose what? The fact that the DL coach snorts coke occasionally? That the head coach is negotiating with another school?

What does the list of things they have to disclose include?

Just the presence of suspected pedophiles?

 

[Townie72]

You're talking about the gray area, the fine line. This is so far to one side you don't have to worry about the fine line.

As to righteous outrage. That's what the PedSt apologists are calling it too.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Well, I'm no PSU apologist. But I'd say "righteous outrage" is a pretty fair characterization of what I read ... including on this thread.

 

[OrangeHeel]

I can't agree with that. I'm no genius and I'm not a great lawyer, but gosh I have been doing this kind of stuff for a very long time. It's how I try to make a living.

And you can't even afford me or anybody with my general background any level of deference.

OrangePa -- love your posts almost always, but I hate it when someone plays the "I'm a lawyer" card. (Or for that matter "I'm a [fill in the blank]" by anyone else.]

In any event, I'm a lawyer too, but I think it's painfully obvious that it is a "football issue". But reasonable minds can disagree. As you know, that's why we have due process and an adversarial system.

Now, the fact that I'm a lawyer and make my living prosecuting those who murder, rob, rape, and maim does not entitle me to a single bit of deference. In fact, it might make my opinion less valuable since so much of the law is divorced from reality.

As a point if reference when I pick a jury, I spend a considerable amount of time appealing to potential jurors' common sense. I actually think this PSU case is one where common sense rules. And, JMHO, for those who think the law leads to a different conclusion, then I'll channel my inner Dickens and say "if that's what the law says, then the law is an ass". (LOL)



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SarasotaPaul]

No it doesn't. He was using your facilities and your program and he damn well knew it and did not do anything other than cover it up several times. I expect to see penn st fans trying to minimalize and excuse JoePa and the Penn St football program. I am dismayed to see some here not getting it.

No. I don't think you get it.

I for one am not defending anybody.

My point is that the notion that this was a "football program issue" that should prompt severe penalites on the football program is misguided.

This was an institutional problem that had some connection to the football program but was actually much bigger than that.

The individuals who decided not to report the 2001 incident were not members of the football program. They were administrators who apparently took into consideration what Joe Paterno had to say if one reads the reports of the e-mails that way.

My only point is that the real culprits in 2001 were the AD, the VP and the President of the school who at best deferred to the football coach and who at worst shirked their ultimate responsibilities.

They had the authority and the responsibility.

The entire Athletic Department and the school should be subject to some form of discipine perhaps but the football program should not be singled out or given the death penalty.[/quote]
Some connection? An amazing analysis. Paterno, ok some connection I guess. Coach, then ex-coach of what sport you tell me. What sports facilities? What sports assistant coaches? What sports bowl games. How the hell do you come up with only fringe connections? The damn football program was the heart of the entire matter that spilled out to infest everything else in Happy Valley. That is the Point!!!!

 

[SWC75]

So, in your opinion it is just business as usual?
How are those issues any different than any school that has been severely sanctioned?
What you propose is a double standard in favor of the perpetrator of the most horrific scandal in college sports history.

I've proposed nothing in favor of any perpetrator of anything. For the people who would be affected by the punishment but had nothing to do with the scandal, it should be business as usual. For the perpetrators of the scandal, it should be anything but. I know you want to "punish the insititution" but the institution is made up of people and people should be judged as individuals. They aren't "collateral damage". I've always felt that the sanctioning of schools with probation and the "death penalty" was equally ham handed for the same reason. The coaches and administrators who did the evil deeds are often on to other jobs while coaches and players who had nothing to do with it are punished to punish the institution. That's always been wrong and I've always been against it in favor of punishing those who are actually responsible.

 

[SWC75]

Gee, you could say those things about most of the penalties the NCAA levies, especially 1&3 but often 2 also.


Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

Yes, and that's what I think of most NCAA levies. Coaches and administrators who commit violaitons should be suspended or banned. Players who accept illegal indicements or partipate in scams designed to keep them eligible should be banned from playing at NCAA schools. The institutions should be fined, with the fines large enough to deter such actions. But don't punish the current kids and coaches or the fans, who did nothing wrong.

 

[rrlbees]

Well, I'm no PSU apologist. But I'd say "righteous outrage" is a pretty fair characterization of what I read ... including on this thread.

When it comes to a situation as sickening as PedSt there is no such thing as righteous outcry.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2qf m

 

[OrangePA]

Point is, you don't need yo be a lawyer to be able to read and understand. Don't forget to read about victim 7 that I linked and the abuse in 95 when he was a coach. Or the article about abuse in 88/89.

Let me know when you're done because I have more for you. Including about why your boy Seasock was asked to do an eval and other shady characters that allowed 98 to go unprosecuted, thus many other boys to be raped.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

I'm sure there will be no need for me to obtain information from you since the important information will be in the Freeh report, right?

The rest is just unsubstantiated speculation.

 

[rrlbees]

I'm sure there will be no need for me to obtain information from you since the important information will be in the Freeh report, right?

The rest is just unsubstantiated speculation.

You aren't discounting testimony made by victims in the Sandusky trial are you?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[SarasotaPaul]

You aren't discounting testimony made by victims in the Sandusky trial are you?

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

He has to ignore all the rest in his quest to minimize Paterno and Penn St football. That may not be his intention , but it is his real reality.

 

[Townie72]

When it comes to a situation as sickening as PedSt there is no such thing as righteous outcry.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2qf m

I have no problem with moral outrage. Just so those that are doing it are 100% consistent.

And just so everyone thinks through any new set of powers that are granted and any precedents that are set.

And when asking (screaming) for the NCAA to prosecute this case and to punish Penn State there can be no complaining about the results of the next case that falls under this newly-exercised power.

If I were the NCAA, I'd huff and puff and do nothing. Let the criminal and civil legal system handle it. That's what they are set up to do after about 1,000 years of hammering things out. One guy is already in prison for life. Others may follow. Careers have been ruined. Civil lawsuits are going to cost the University and the Commonwealth zillions. The reputation of the University has been horribly stained.

How much punishment is enough in your opinion?

 

[Townie72]

He has to ignore all the rest in his quest to minimize Paterno and Penn St football. That may not be his intention , but it is his real reality.

Nobody is trying to minimize anything. The crimes were disgusting. The cover-up was cowardly and shameful.

What some are doing --- myself and Orange PA --- is to suggest there is some sort of limit to how severely the University can be punished. And some danger in creating precedents and giving the NCAA a new role. This has to be thought through.

Here's the question: If you were the judge and jury and all powerful, what would your list of punishments include? What's the full set that would satisfy you so that you felt that the punishment was adequate to the crime?

I've been taught to test at the extremes. So would closing the University, tearing down the buildings and restoring the site to farmland be enough? Or too much?

How about permanently eliminating all PSU intercollegiate athletic programs for 50 years? Enough or too much?

How about eliminating PSU football for 10 years? Enough or too much?

 

[rrlbees]

Nobody is trying to minimize anything. The crimes were disgusting. The cover-up was cowardly and shameful.

What some are doing --- myself and Orange PA --- is to suggest there is some sort of limit to how severely the University can be punished. And some danger in creating precedents and giving the NCAA a new role. This has to be thought through.

Here's the question: If you were the judge and jury and all powerful, what would your list of punishments include? What's the full set that would satisfy you so that you felt that the punishment was adequate to the crime?

I've been taught to test at the extremes. So would closing the University, tearing down the buildings and restoring the site to farmland be enough? Or too much?

How about permanently eliminating all PSU intercollegiate athletic programs for 50 years? Enough or too much?

How about eliminating PSU football for 10 years? Enough or too much?

My back and forth with OPA is whether it was football related as he focuses ob 2001 when Sandusky wasn't a coach.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[Louie&Bouie]

Nobody is trying to minimize anything. The crimes were disgusting. The cover-up was cowardly and shameful.

What some are doing --- myself and Orange PA --- is to suggest there is some sort of limit to how severely the University can be punished. And some danger in creating precedents and giving the NCAA a new role. This has to be thought through.

Here's the question: If you were the judge and jury and all powerful, what would your list of punishments include? What's the full set that would satisfy you so that you felt that the punishment was adequate to the crime?

I've been taught to test at the extremes. So would closing the University, tearing down the buildings and restoring the site to farmland be enough? Or too much?

How about permanently eliminating all PSU intercollegiate athletic programs for 50 years? Enough or too much?

How about eliminating PSU football for 10 years? Enough or too much?

My only argument in this thread has been whether this is a crime that involves the football program. IMO, when the former head coach participates in a FOURTEEN year cover-up of sexually predatory behavior exhibited by a former coordinator, in the football buildings, on football trips, and at bowl games, then the answer can only be yes.

I have no idea what the punishments should be. I don't pretend to have that type of knowledge. I know, however, that this behavior mandates some kind of punishment.

I guess I don't see how that can be argued.

 

[Townie72]

My only argument in this thread has been whether this is a crime that involves the football program. IMO, when the former head coach participates in a FOURTEEN year cover-up of sexually predatory behavior exhibited by a former coordinator, in the football buildings, on football trips, and at bowl games, then the answer can only be yes.

I have no idea what the punishments should be. I don't pretend to have that type of knowledge. I know, however, that this behavior mandates some kind of punishment.

I guess I don't see how that can be argued.

Of course it involved the football program. Some of these people were football coaches or ex-coaches. But it didn't involve the whole football program (all the players, coaches, trainers, etc.)

Of course it involved the Athletic Department ... including the AD. But not everybody in the Athletic Department.

Of course it involved the University ... including the President. But not all the students and employees of the University.

Seems to me that the legal system is in place to handle the crimes here. PSU's own HR rules are going to handle the ethical issues that were not law violations by firing people.

I don't see what the NCAA adds to this. I don't think they are really prepared to handle this sort of thing. It's beyond their capabilities.And it establishes some precedents that are very difficult to maintain.

Penn State needs to do this by themselves. It will become increasingly obvious to them that they have to do something. I'd start with highly symbolic things like moving Joe's statue to some remote part of the campus.

 

[SWC75]

Watched the discussion on ESPN First Take and the dame split was evident. Skip Bayless felt there was no competitive advantage gained so the NCAA should not have standing. Contrasted to SMU and Ohio State where he felt prospective players would be enticed to enroll to enjoy the benefits. Rob Parker thought that the crimes and cover up are so reprehensible that the death penalty should be levied.
What Bayless and others are missing I'd that competitive advantage can come not only from the perception of positive aspects but also from the suppression of negative aspects. Covering up the heinous crimes being committed IN the football facilities and ENABLING THEM TO CONTINUE after the initial reports was all about protecting a squeaky clean reputation and the ability to recruit. Bayless feels that Penn State and the football program has already suffered enough. The current recruiting class, ranked 14th nationally suggests that at least to this point O'Brien has been able to effectively distance himself and the current administration to the point that there will be no negative consequences, at least on the field.
This cannot be allowed to stand.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

Covering up crimes is an inducement to recruits to come to Penn State?

 

[SWC75]

Bad example - Fannie Mae did fail and was seized by the Feds, which for a GSE is like bankruptcy. Stockholders wiped out - that is surely failing.

Goldman Sachs would be a better example- their guys are in the government so nothing happens to them.

 

[SWC75]

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.

Paterno covered this up to protect the football program at the expense of the individuals who were Sandusky's victims. he placed the program over the individuals. If we punish the individuals on the current team in order to punish the program, we are doping the same thing. The individuals who did illegal or unethical things should be punished and the program can be punsihed finaincially, (the fines could go to child advocay organizations. But don't view the individuals on the current team as merely extentions of the "program". They are people, too.

 

[SWC75]

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.

What's the WAR?

 

[Louie&Bouie]

Think there weren't some eyebrows raised in the 70's and 80's by members of the coaching staff?

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

 

[SWC75]

I've read all 8 pages now and here is a summary of my views:

1) It's clearly a football issue.
2) The people who covered Sandusky's crimes up committed crimes themselves. If Paterno had lived, he'd be looking at some severe legal repercussions right now. Some of the others may be as well.
3) It's within the purview of the NCAA and they should take some kind of action. If a player had a DWI he'd be facing elgal consequnces but could be punished for a violation of team rules on top of that.
4) I have always felt and still feel that the punishment should not only fit the crime but should also fit the criminal. People who did nothing wrong should not suffer under the punishment. You can suspend or ban people who did wrong things and you can fine the school but I don't like probation or the death penalty because the coaches and players on the current team didn't do anything wrong but they will be punished. Penn State fans didn't root for kids to be raped, tiehr. I saw an old western recently where a hew Sherif took over and found hyis jail full of debtors who couldn't even try to repay their debts because they were in jail for not paying debts. He released them with the understanding that if they didn';t get jobs and begin to repay the debts within a certian time, they'd be back in jail. Why not suspend, ban and/or put in jail the actual people who did things wrong and have 10% of Penn State's football revenues go to the victims and child advocacy organizations, (the victims could also sue the university) with comercials against child abuse being run during their games. That would do the victims more good than a "death penalty".
5) An exchange of well thought out opinions is always good. Insulting people because of a disagreement or asserting that someone else's opinion isn't as valuable as your own is nt useful. The opinions of lawyers on legal issues certainly has value, so long as you realize you are not the only lawyer and that lawyers don't have the only valuable opinions.

 

[Consigliere]

Covering up crimes is an inducement to recruits to come to Penn State?

Not what I'm saying at all, obviously. My point is that a decision made during recruiting will involve the weighing of positives and negatives for each school. I'm saying suppression of negatives can lead to a competitive advantage as much as perception of positives can whether legitimate or, as was the case of SMU in Bayless's example, in violation of NCAA rules.

To say that PSU should not be penalized since they gained no advantage misses this point.

Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk 2

 

[rrlbees]

Of course it involved the football program. Some of these people were football coaches or ex-coaches. But it didn't involve the whole football program (all the players, coaches, trainers, etc.)

Of course it involved the Athletic Department ... including the AD. But not everybody in the Athletic Department.

Of course it involved the University ... including the President. But not all the students and employees of the University.

Seems to me that the legal system is in place to handle the crimes here. PSU's own HR rules are going to handle the ethical issues that were not law violations by firing people.

I don't see what the NCAA adds to this. I don't think they are really prepared to handle this sort of thing. It's beyond their capabilities.And it establishes some precedents that are very difficult to maintain.

Penn State needs to do this by themselves. It will become increasingly obvious to them that they have to do something. I'd start with highly symbolic things like moving Joe's statue to some remote part of the campus.

No NCAA infraction involves a full team or full AD or school.

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[MaxwellCuse]

The timeline is about to be extended further back in time. This isn't over by a longshot.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/ncaaf...-against-jerry-sandusky-190319532--ncaaf.html