Why no talk of death penalty for Penn State? | Page 8 | The Boneyard

Why no talk of death penalty for Penn State?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Want this to go to court and have these 3 have to explain what "humane" means related to dealing with Sandusky. Not sure why, but am not buying the "implications" of what happened in the meeting with Paterno that it had to be that paterno suggested not turning Sandusky in to authorities. I've been wrong about public sports figures before, but this would be really, really disappointing.
 
freescooter said:
There is virtually no way to apply as penalty to a program caught violating the rules without penalizing "innocent" players. In the USC situation, Reggie Bush was long gone, for the NFL, as was Pete Carroll, before penalties were applied to USC. The NCAA has no mechanism, nor can one really be devised to penalize players and coaches and administrators who leave before the penalty is applied...further the penalty applies to the institution and the team which commits the violation, and it is applied on a going forward basis for the most part. So if a team loses scholarships, obivously it means that they have fewer to offer future players, likewise a bowl ban applies ot future bowls. You can disallow certain past results, but you can't "unplay" the games. The only meaningful way you can penalize a team is to deprive them of future benefits and by definition that impacts future, and thus likely innocent, players.
Expand ...


One major difference people seem to forget when they use the USC example against others that say UConn's punishment is unfair to innocent players, is that USC's "innocent" players are getting punished for something that WAS against the rules when someone broke them. While in UConn's case, the rules DIDN'T exist when the people who "broke" the rules were here, and our players STILL have to be punished for them.
 
Two points...#1 and most important, I was talking about Penn State and defending penalizing that program in the future. I can't imagine them getting off scott free for putting protection of the football program ahead of protecting kids. #2. to a degree you miscatagorize the UConn APR situation. UConn was in violation of the rules. It was the punishment that increased. I agree that it unfortunate, but I don't agree that it is unfair to punish "future" athletes for past infractions, whether its APR or recruiting or any other rules violation. There really is no other option unless you figure out how to unplay games.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You are the one defending the cover up of a serial, child rapist, not me. I don't know where you get "not concerned with the victims for the families" bs. Are you more concerned for the victims because you think the school that enabled their rape should not be punished? How exactly does that work?

By your logic, no one from a program you deem "inferior" to Penn State can opine on the appropriate punishment of a school that concealed a serial child rapist. I can not begin to explain how you reach THAT conclusion.

I am not sure whether to give you credit for these mind-bending logical gymnastics, or accuse you of being a sociopath. I actually don't think you are smart enough to understand your own position, so I will just give you a pass on a post that is so warped that it is offensive.
Expand ...

Yes, saying that there are more people who should be in jail = defending a cover up.

Because disagreeing on the TYPE of punishment, is exactly the same thing as saying there should be NO punishment.

I feel sorry for you.
 
freescooter said:
Two points...#1 and most important, I was talking about Penn State and defending penalizing that program in the future. I can't imagine them getting off scott free for putting protection of the football program ahead of protecting kids. #2. to a degree you miscatagorize the UConn APR situation. UConn was in violation of the rules. It was the punishment that increased. I agree that it unfortunate, but I don't agree that it is unfair to punish "future" athletes for past infractions, whether its APR or recruiting or any other rules violation. There really is no other option unless you figure out how to unplay games.
Expand ...

Sure there are.

Eliminate official visits, eliminate recruiting visits, eliminate recruiting phone calls/text messages, don't allow the coaches to attend summer AAU tournaments or in season HS games. Complete contact black out periods. Make them do all their recruiting by video with scouting reports. Make it virtually impossible to develop the relationship required to succesfully recruit.

Suspend the head coach for an entire season, fine the outta the AD, or better yet, take that fine and force them to create an academic program with NCAA oversight. Require they employ a 1:1 professional tutor to athlete ratio. Increase the required scores for incoming athletes so they can no longer take the "academic risks" they aren't prepared to educate.

I just thought of these in 30 seconds, certainly there are more ways.
 
.-.
Well I can seel it's been a slooooow week in the college football world. Had an emergency out of town and didn't get to check the board last week. Finally got to it, and didn't see the addition of too many new and interesting topics. So guess I'll just comment on an old one.

Whether PSU gets the death penalty or some form of it is certainly open for debate. However, I think it's important to remember that the $$$$$$$$ brought in by their fb program allows other sports programs to exist. (I hadn't seen this brought up before, so apologize in advance if it has been.) So the question is whether those other programs can avoid being the victim of a dealth penalty punishment to the fb program? I think most people would say they shouldn't be, but they need the fb $$$$$$$$ to continue. So how this all plays out will be interesting.

On another note, I agree with those persons who think that the NCAA will have to step in and do something and take some form of action against PSU when most of the legal wrangling is over.

Here's a couple of stories that discuss the death penalty. The first indicates if PSU officials did know about it, yet still covered it up doing nothing, then the death penalty is an option.
Legal experts: New evidence of cover-up reflects grim future for Penn State football

http://blog.pennlive.com/patriotnewssports/2012/06/new_evidence_of_cover-up_shows.html

Could Penn State face the death penalty because it protected Jerry Sandusky?

http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/06/could_penn_state_face_the_deat.html
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You are the one defending the cover up of a serial, child rapist, not me. I don't know where you get "not concerned with the victims for the families" bs. Are you more concerned for the victims because you think the school that enabled their rape should not be punished? How exactly does that work?
Expand ...

That doesn't work. Thank God that's not what I said. Thank God I said there are more people who should be prosecuted or else someone actually interested in real discourse might think I defended the cover up.

nelsonmuntz said:
By your logic, no one from a program you deem "inferior" to Penn State can opine on the appropriate punishment of a school that concealed a serial child rapist. I can not begin to explain how you reach THAT conclusion.
Expand ...

Thank God that's not my logic. Thank God I didn't say who could or couldn't opine on the punishment. If there's anyone who should be able to explain tht conclusion, it would be you, since you're the one who invented it.

nelsonmuntz said:
I am not sure whether to give you credit for these mind-bending logical gymnastics, or accuse you of being a sociopath. I actually don't think you are smart enough to understand your own position, so I will just give you a pass on a post that is so warped that it is offensive.
Expand ...

I'm smart enough to know that I haven't done anything you said, and if there's a sociopath here, it's you. You're a liar, a repeated liar, a poster who only knows how to reply to what people didn't say, rather than what they actually said. You are concerned only with being right, and will fabricate others opinions to prove yourself right. You are not concerned with actual discourse, and actually discourage it based on your actions. All while being too egotistical to acknowledge this is your schtick. And you are the only one on this board who behaves this way. That, waylon, is the definition of sociopath.
 
WingU-Conn said:
Yes, saying that there are more people who should be in jail = defending a cover up.

Because disagreeing on the TYPE of punishment, is exactly the same thing as saying there should be NO punishment.

I feel sorry for you.
Expand ...

Until the email leak, you did not think the institution should be punished at all, just a few individuals. Of course, the two most culpable individuals in the whole mess are either in jail for the rest of their life or dead, so I am not sure what additional punishment can be meted out by the NCAA.

Read the post I copied before you tell me what you did and didn't say. If you want to change your position, just say you are changing your position, but don't accuse me of mischaracterizing your words. Your post from last Tuesday was crystal clear.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
Until the email leak, you did not think the institution should be punished at all, just a few individuals. Of course, the two most culpable individuals in the whole mess are either in jail for the rest of their life or dead, so I am not sure what additional punishment can be meted out by the NCAA.

Read the post I copied before you tell me what you did and didn't say. If you want to change your position, just say you are changing your position, but don't accuse me of mischaracterizing your words. Your post from last Tuesday was crystal clear.
Expand ...

WingU-Conn said:
I have a hard time believing that any punishment to the current football team will act as a deterrent. I'm guessing about 95-98% of all americans understand it's wrong to molest children, and wrong to protect child molesters. If your morals are so lacking you are willing to protect a child molester, and risk going to jail in the process, losing 20 scholarships isn't going to give you a change of heart.
Expand ...


What part of "I have a hard time believing that any punishment to the current football team will act as a deterrent." means "I don't care if people cover for a child molester"??

My sarcastic "you're a genius" post from last Tuesday was in response to this:
nelsonmuntz said:
Now I realize that you actually think Penn State should not be punished for covering up a serial child molester for decades.
Expand ...

What part of questioning the impact of "losing scholarships" means "it's okay to cover up for a child molester"?

I'm not accusing you of a mischaracterization. That would be an understatement. I'm calling you what you are, a pathetic liar.

You're crazy. And I still feel sorry for you. Do you care to explain why people should be rewarded for not raping children? What rewards have you received for not raping children? And what type of parents bred a kid so up they had to reward him for not raping children?
 
.-.
It's nice to see Nelson going full Nelson Muntz with the fallacies.
 
WingU-Conn said:
Now I realize that you actually think taking scholarships away from kids is morally superior to sending criminals to jail.

You actually said schools should be rewarded for not raping children. In your twisted mind it's difficult to avoid raping children, and anyone who avoids it should be rewarded. You're a disgusting opportunist who isn't concerned with the victims or their families, you just want to take this opportunity to punish a football program that we typically can't compete with on several different levels.
Expand ...

The money line is that I want to punish Penn State because UConn can't compete with Penn State. This is the kind of argument WingU uses to defend Penn State.
 
WingU-Conn said:
I have a hard time believing that any punishment to the current football team will act as a deterrent. I'm guessing about 95-98% of all americans understand it's wrong to molest children, and wrong to protect child molesters. If your morals are so lacking you are willing to protect a child molester, and risk going to jail in the process, losing 20 scholarships isn't going to give you a change of heart.
Expand ...


The argument is that Penn State is so lacking morally, why bother punishing them?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The argument is that Penn State is so lacking morally, why bother punishing them?
Expand ...

Why do you have to use a fallacy to try and make your point?

It seems pretty universal that people want some sort of corrective action againts PSU. But there are alot of different ways to do that, but just because someone doesn't endorse the same technique as you, doesn't mean that they are trying to cover for the guilty.
 
ZooCougar said:
Why do you have to use a fallacy to try and make your point?

It seems pretty universal that people want some sort of corrective action againts PSU. But there are alot of different ways to do that, but just because someone doesn't endorse the same technique as you, doesn't mean that they are trying to cover for the guilty.
Expand ...

WingU did not want corrective action. He was clear about that.
 
.-.
nelsonmuntz said:
WingU did not want corrective action. He was clear about that.
Expand ...

Neither do you. You don't want corrective action either. You want punishment. There's a difference. Not that there's anything wrong with punishment. I think UNC too should be punished much harder. I'm assuming they've already taken corrective action.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
WingU did not want corrective action. He was clear about that.
Expand ...
That's not how I read WingU's comments. I read them saying that he doesn't believe the penalties he mentioned will have an effect, not that there shouldn't be penalties.
 
Penalties and punishment can also be corrective action. Just pretend that all three are the same thing for a moment. And besides what good is a punishment if it doesn't make you to not want to do the thing that you were not supposed to do in the first place.
 
nelsonmuntz said:
The money line is that I want to punish Penn State because UConn can't compete with Penn State. This is the kind of argument WingU uses to defend Penn State.
Expand ...

I didn't defend Penn State, I attacked your argument, because it's smacks of opportunism. Because you're ridiculous enough to make the argument that schools should be "rewarded for not raping children".

So, what reward did your parents give you for not raping children?
 
.-.
WingU-Conn said:
I didn't defend Penn State, I attacked your argument, because it's smacks of opportunism. Because you're ridiculous enough to make the argument that schools should be "rewarded for not raping children".

So, what reward did your parents give you for not raping children?
Expand ...

By not punishing Penn State, you would be punishing all the schools that didn't break the rules. Football is a zero sum game. I know you are slow on the uptake, but there has to be a loser for every winner in football. By letting Penn State get away with cheating, everyone who didn't cheat gets punished because Penn State had an advantage as a result of their cheating. This is basic logic, not rocket science.

It gets tiring to explain the most basic aspects of critical reasoning to you. You are so obtuse most of the time that I assume you are kidding, but you seem serious.
 
WingU-Conn said:
In all honesty, get help.
Expand ...

I was going to let it go, but I provided the link and you clearly said you did not believe that punishing Penn State would serve any purpose. In another post you state that the current players shouldn't be punished for the acts of a few administrators.

You posted those things IN THIS THREAD. You can't lie about something when you leave a written record. The only explanation I can come up with is that you are so dense you don't even understand the logical and moral problems with your position.
 
upstater said:
Neither do you. You don't want corrective action either. You want punishment. There's a difference. Not that there's anything wrong with punishment. I think UNC too should be punished much harder. I'm assuming they've already taken corrective action.
Expand ...

You keep dragging other people and issues into this. UNC has nothing to do with the fact that Penn State concealed the activities of a serial child rapist for almost 2 decades, so let's ignore UNC for the time being. Agreed?

If you don't punish this cover-up, then why should any athletic program in the future ever come forward with any violation? By your argument, there is no time machine through which we can go back and change history, so why punish Penn State at all? Haven't they suffered enough? (sarcasm intended)
 
nelsonmuntz said:
By not punishing Penn State, you would be punishing all the schools that didn't break the rules. Football is a zero sum game. I know you are slow on the uptake, but there has to be a loser for every winner in football. By letting Penn State get away with cheating, everyone who didn't cheat gets punished because Penn State had an advantage as a result of their cheating. This is basic logic, not rocket science.

It gets tiring to explain the most basic aspects of critical reasoning to you. You are so obtuse most of the time that I assume you are kidding, but you seem serious.
Expand ...

My God, you're boiling this down to gaining an advantage for football?
 
nelsonmuntz said:
You keep dragging other people and issues into this. UNC has nothing to do with the fact that Penn State concealed the activities of a serial child rapist for almost 2 decades, so let's ignore UNC for the time being. Agreed?

If you don't punish this cover-up, then why should any athletic program in the future ever come forward with any violation? By your argument, there is no time machine through which we can go back and change history, so why punish Penn State at all? Haven't they suffered enough? (sarcasm intended)
Expand ...

Uh, no. We're talking about the NCAA's power to punish here. You have to look at how the NCAA operates. Only a tiny mind like yours would interpret that as dragging others into it.

As for the rest, never said any of it. In fact, I've said the exact opposite in this very thread. You continue to twist words into saying the exact opposite of what posters are saying.

What is wrong with you?
 
Here is what I think should happen to Penn State:

By the NCAA:

2 year death penalty for football.
1 year death penalty for rest of athletic department.
Permanent, indefinite probation.

Here is what I hope also happens:

The Federal Government institutes a RICO investigation of Penn State's athletic program, since Penn State profited by concealing Sandusky's activities. This would mean that Penn State's athletic program is deemed a criminal enterprise, which is exactly what it was. I hope that any senior employees that had knowledge of Sandusky's activities serve long jail terms.

I hope that Penn State's insurer refuses to pay on its liability policy, and that every individual that knew about Sandusky's activities over the past 20 years and did nothing is sued personally and financially destroyed. This should include the Paterno estate.

I hope the NCAA passes a rule that any employee of an NCAA athletic department is obligated to report knowledge of criminal activity within that athletic department or by its members directly to the NCAA immediately upon finding out. Failure to do so will result in lifetime banishment from employment with any NCAA affiliated institution. Turning in a child rapist should not be as morally complicated as it apparently was for so many in Penn State's athletic department.
 
.-.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Forum statistics

Threads
168,322
Messages
4,563,885
Members
10,458
Latest member
Liam Rainst


Top Bottom