Why no talk of death penalty for Penn State?

[whaler11]

When college athletic programs are sanctioned, aren't innocent kids always punished? Reggie Bush accepted a house, but the team/program had to pay the price.

Easy solution. I'm now down with the death penalty for them. Everyone who transfers doesn't count towards the 85 for the new school. Can play immediately. Disruptive for sure, but the kids can pick out their best situation and the schools taking them have no risk past the tuition dollars.

 

[ZooCougar]

Agree 100%. It's time for Penn State to regain its academic and values based focus while taking a football sabbatical.

 

[zls44]

Agree 100%. It's time for Penn State to regain its academic and values based focus while taking a football sabbatical.

It should be a permanent sabbatical.

Permanent.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

It's clear, after seeing the emails, that the FOOTBALL PROGRAM was more important the welfare of innocent kids. How in the world do not not SERVERELY punish the FOOTBALL PROGRAM?

I don't understand the argument that you shouldn't punish today's players for something that occurred in the past. Look at our APR ban for God's sake.

Need a break from football for a couple of years in Happy Valley.

 

[zls44]

I get the idea of not punishing the players there now, or the players at all, really. Not their fault. Totally agree.

But this is about the idea that this program, and the people running it, do not deserve the publicity of having a football team. They do not deserve the joys. They do not deserve the attention. They failed a basic human trust. They have forfeited their right to compete in college football ever again.

They need to get back to being an educational institution. The first step in that is learning a lesson themselves.

 

[FAIRTIDES]

It's clear, after seeing the emails, that the FOOTBALL PROGRAM was more important the welfare of innocent kids. How in the world do not not SERVERELY punish the FOOTBALL PROGRAM?

I don't understand the argument that you shouldn't punish today's players for something that occurred in the past. Look at our APR ban for God's sake.

Need a break from football for a couple of years in Happy Valley.

I hope this doesn't come across as trivializing the events by reducing heinous crimes to football related NCAA punishments. The fact is that I can't find vitriol or invective to describe the outrage. The crimes committed by Sandusky and Penn State are the worst I've ever heard of within the context of college sports. In my opinion, what has happened at Penn State is worse than murder.

Anyway, Just finished an article in the "NY Post," headlined as:
"Penn State officials decided against reporting Sandusky after talking with Paterno: report"

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/paterno_state_officials_decided_kVnfE2jadPcimAxScrJccM#ixzz1zIRNSvkc​

If true (it is the "Post"), it means that the defenders of Paterno can no longer argue that the coach reported the incident to his superiors; on its face, a worthless argument, anyway. Sure he reported "it" to his superiors (were they really?). It seems that Joe forgot to mention that he successfully lobbied to keep the whole sordid mess under wraps during his "report."​

While reading this thread I have always had one question: What, if anything, in it's by-laws allows the NCAA to get involved. Now that that there is evidence that the cover-up was led by Paterno, it has become a football matter related to the programs image especially as that image relates to Penn State maintaining it's ability to recruit. The NCAA is judge, jury, appeal hearer and executioner on all things related to recruiting. Further more, no NCAA violation I know of, including the SMU violations comes close to Sandusky's actions or the subsequent cover-up. Nothing!​

 

[businesslawyer]

There should be many more people facing prosecution than Sandusky, starting with his wife, and any "executive" administrator at PSU that knew of this and did nothing.

That said, other than out of spite, I don't know why anyone thinks the athletes who had absolutely nothing to do with this should be punished. Not a single player on our men's basketball team was around when the team was getting poor grades, but they all have to sit out the NCAA/Big East tourneys because of mistakes made by others. It would surprise to me to find out that any UConn fan would wish the same "justice" on other student athletes. I'll never understand why the NCAA, or anyone else, would think taking opportunities away (through post season play or even worse, scholarships) from innocent athletes is a just punishment for the behavior of others.

This is a perfectly rational position, and I understand it. But I strongly disagree. The NCAA can't implement rules that don't have at times serious collateral damage on the then players and fanbase of institutions. But if you don't allow for the collateral damage, there will not be tools for making anyone care about the rules.

This is why, as to the hoops APR, you never heard me say this was unfair to the current team. It is, but tough cookies. My problem with the APR punishment is that it's implementation counted years before the penalty for noncompliance was announced, and that having done so the NCAA is not doing everything in its power to lessen the impact of that by counting more recent academic years where the results are available.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

Until I read your "reward schools for not raping children" post I thought your attack on innocent student athletes was half-genuine. 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.

If you want to punish "Penn State" why stop at football? Why not punish all of the sports? Since schools need to be taught that raping children is frowned upon by the NCAA, why not eliminate all sports for 2 years? Why not eliminate the psychology and criminal justice departments/courses thanks to the failings of the administration in those regards?

Since we're punishing innocent people in the name of justice, why not fine every football player who ever played for Penn State. That'll learn em.

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.

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

I get the idea of not punishing the players there now, or the players at all, really. Not their fault. Totally agree.

But this is about the idea that this program, and the people running it, do not deserve the publicity of having a football team. They do not deserve the joys. They do not deserve the attention. They failed a basic human trust. They have forfeited their right to compete in college football ever again.

They need to get back to being an educational institution. The first step in that is learning a lesson themselves.

WingU thinks you should shut up because you are a UConn fan.

 

[businesslawyer]

WingU thinks you should shut up because you are a UConn fan.

Well, that was a helpful addition to the discussion.

 

[Husky68]

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.

 

[Santini35]

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.

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.

 

[freescooter]

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.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

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.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

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.

 

[Johnbuoy]

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

 

[BlueMAB]

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[BlueMAB]

You are the one defending the cover up of a serial, child rapist, not me.

There should be many more people facing prosecution than Sandusky, starting with his wife, and any "executive" administrator at PSU that knew of this and did nothing.

You are crazy.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

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.

 

[BlueMAB]

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.

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.

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 moron" post from last Tuesday was in response to this:

Now I realize that you actually think Penn State should not be punished for covering up a serial child molester for decades.

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?

 

[businesslawyer]

My sarcastic "you're a moron" post from last Tuesday was in response to this:

Now you've been caught fibbing. No one believes that when you called him a moron you were being sarcastic!

 

[BlueMAB]

Now you've been caught fibbing. No one believes that when you called him a moron you were being sarcastic!

Touche

 

[ZooCougar]

It's nice to see Nelson going full Nelson Muntz with the fallacies.

 

[nelsonmuntz]

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.

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.